Sharpe_95

Hi everyone, After hearing recently that SRS was no longer being maintained (rumour, not confirmed) I looked at setting up the DCS VOIP. I have it doing almost everything I need from it, except one thing: How to I set it to move each radio so that it is either coming in from my left ear or my right ear (like we can do via SRS)? Example: I would like Radio 1 to only come through my left ear and radio 2 to only come through my right ear. Is it possible to do this with DCS VOIP or is it something that is going to be added later (or is it not even going to be added?). Thanks for the help.

Hi, First Razbam, thanks for the excellent F15E module - a great release, supported very well by Baltic Dragons manual and Notso's tutorial videos. I have found a minor bug/error in the listing labels given to the 'call backs' (if that is the term) in the F15E front seat menu for the following: - UFC PB 10 - Which actually calls back UFC PB 06 (not 10 as labelled). - UFC PB 09 - Which actually calls back UFC PB 07 (not 09 as labelled). - UFC PB 07 - Which actually calls back UFC PB 09 (not 07 as labelled). - UFC PB 06 - Which actually calls back UFC PB 10 (not 06 as labelled). UFC PB 01-05 and 08 functioning as expected, I have not checked the back seat. Thanks again - S

And so long as we have the auto saved file from both pilots that is was ED needs? -S

[REPORTED]Vaziani no longer has runway markings? Hi guys, We have been using Vaziani as an airbase to operate from. Since the latest patch all runway markings have gone. There is no centre line, no touchdown point, no piano keys, no runway numbers. Is this deliberate or an error? -S

^ I'll work on getting one but may be a week or two. @Newy - when you say a client track and not a server track - how do I save a MP file as a client track? -S

Friendly bump. Please could ED identify if this is correct as is or a bug? -S

Frankenstein was the creator, not the monster. :doh: Sorry just while we are needling people about being accurate......:smilewink: -S

Whoop :thumbup:

Naturally I cant be 100% sure but having just flown a low alt mission since today's v2.5.6.49718 update I cant help but think this issue has got worse? -S

Hi guys, I noticed today that the TACAN 'Yardstick' (mirroring TACAN channels to get distance data between aircraft) has developed a bug since 2.5.6.49718 (today's patch), after working reliably and well beforehand. I am describing this as a bug as I can't see that this is 'correct as is' as the functionality does not seem logical and also no changes were announced in the change log related to the F16s TACAN (that I can see). This issue is as follows: When a pair of (human) pilots set up the Yardstick, everything seems to work fine. However, when one of them either changes band (X/Y) or the mode (TR/AATR etc) then one of the aircraft (the one that 'stayed' on the original TACAN freqs) has an 'inverted' (black writting on green background, rather than normal green writing on a black background) range measurement in the DED. A further problem exists that when rejoining back to the original TACAN freq, the player that 'left' will show correct range data in the but not the pilot that stayed has (with the inverted DED/CNI range readout) has a 'frozen' range read out that never moves. The 'inverted' TACAN range readout in the CNI page only shows the range at which the other pilot was at the point they moved frequency. The only way to fix this issue is for both pilots to leave the freq (for example, by changing bands, although I assume it works by changing freq or changing mode). When swapping bands (Y to X) we then had 'normal' function of the TACAN in the DED/CNI and the same when moving back to band Y. In summary: Both pilots tune to a yardstick (EG 11/74y AA-TR). Pilot #1 moves to band X. Pilot #1 shows - - - - - in the DED/CNI as normal, but pilot #2 (who stayed on band Y) now has 'inverted' TACAN range info in the DED/CNI. Pilot #1 moves back to band Y. Pilot #1 has correct DED/CNI as normal, but pilot #2 still has 'inverted' TACAN range info in the DED/CNI. When the aircraft move around, only pilot #1 has range info in the DED/CNI. The only way to fix is for both Pilots #1 and #2 to move to band X then back to band Y. I have not tested this with more than two people sharing the channel and if this makes the matter worse? Nor have I tested what happens when another flight is using a different channel that you (accidentally or by purpose) 'drop' into - but I assume it then creates a wave of issues for the other flight that now also has 'broken' TACAN info? Anyway, I have provided a track of myself and a Sqn buddy demonstrating this issue. As I say, it looks like a bug as logic dictates its going to cause issues inter flight as well as the stated intra flight issues. Also ED have made no announcement of any change to TACAN/DED functionality and there is no evidence of this operation in any F16 reference material that I have? Can it please be confirmed if this is a bug? -S server-20200526-210834.trk

Is this what you are referring to? https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=269358 -S

Yes but I think this has already been reported? -S

Quite right and almost fully agree. However, while I would normally be the first to jump up and down and complain about the state of the F16 and the lack of love it is getting ATM, in my mind I have rationalised it thus (maybe it is helpful for you)?: I am the first person in the queue when it comes to 'give me my module now I dont care what state it is in', I therefore cant and wont complain when what they give is a little (or a lot) rough around the edges. I am 100% behind EDs EA business model and fully accept the fact that we will have a 'busted/not ready' aircraft for a year or two while we all (hopefully) help ED with open beta testing, in my mind this helps ED and speeds the process up and I get a fun aircarft to fly a couple of years early :thumbup: Do I wish ED would give more love to F16? Yes. But then the Hornet was where the F16 is now some years ago and they are committing to getting it out of EA, hopefully we will see this same level of love some time next year. But also, remember that the skills the Devs are learning getting Hornet out of EA are if not directly relevant to F16 then very closely linked - so I see that as helpful too. ^Hope that's helpful to you? Although as they say 'rationalisation is the first refuge of an unsound mind' ;) Regarding the payment model - well now, there's an interesting and probably horrifying discussion for another day and another post. Back to your OP: Naturally (and with equal validity) not eveyone thinks this way. Some people will just apply a black and white picture saying 'it's not on the exact F16 model we fly therefore it's not realistic therefore no' - but forget that actually when you look around at how we all fly (even those of us that do fly in more realistic VFWS) and how the sim works, they forget we are breaking realism rules left right and centre by design, by choice and by accident. I think this therefore undermines any 'realism only' argument. As you said it's a matter of choice. I dont think the option for choice should be removed for weapons integration just because 'the weapon in question is not 'realistic' because it is not on our exact model of the F16'. Its is available on some F16s, give people the choice, let them decide to use it or not. -S

+1 However the OPs post is clearly not a bug but a wishlist issue surely? Recon a mod will be moving this post shortly. -S

Lol - very kind of you to 'take one for the team': you will forever be held in high honour among the fledgling DCS Typhoon community and your sacrifice never forgotten. NOW STOP TALKING HERE AND GET BACK IN YOUR WORKSHOP!!!!! -S

Yeah I can confirm it has never been modeled in BMS either. I'm looking forward to this too (just coz I'm a naff pilot and the more basic info is in the hud the happier I am!). -S

Well if realism is the ultimate standard we are all to apply to I would argue you should feel worse for re-arming in about 30 seconds to a minute, or changing your skin instantly, when your flicking switches in your pit while executing a 9g turn or when you get easy and consistent locks on targets low to the ground as there is no ground clutter effect on radar or when you are firing amraams BVR having not achieved clear two factor authentication of the target. And by the way, I assume you fly in a full flight suit and helmet when your in the pit and naturally we all have 2-4 hour briefings before we fly - right? Oh btw when was the last time you drank alcohol as you clearly can't be under the influence when flying, nor can you drink a mug or tea or coffee while your flying ;-) Point is, DCS is one of the best (also few) modern combat flight simulators. But just because it has the word 'simulator' in the title this does not mean people should confuse it for real life. ED know this and that is why they put in various 'player aids' to make the game more fun and pragmatic for eveyone. Thus, as you say, we play a game where people can take the realism factor as far as they like. ED do their bit by giving us models and an engine to fly in that are as well modeled as they can make it - the rest is down to how far the player wishes to go, and what the player wants and funny old thing, that varies person by person and it comes down to what they want and where they choose to draw the line. In the mean time, in the same way we have options to fly the same module in game mode or sim mode - ED provide, we choose. Weapons, ED supply (as far as they can get suitable info to code it from in the first place) we choose to use it or not. For my part (IMHO) so long as there is a thread to the weapon being used on the aircraft (one variant or another) in genral as so long as ED have the ability and resources to model it (+/- some fudge factor) then as you say - give it us and let us work out if we want to use it or not. Personally I would pay ED on a weapon by weapon basis for additional content. Having the choice is the key. -S PS: On the subject of realism and amraams I would really recommend this short (open source) essay written by a member of the USAF war college; 'Promise and Reality: BVR combat'. There is no way all this can be modeled in the sim as it is mostly about human factors/ROE impacts on BVR but it's still a fascinating read when compared to how we all fling amraams at eachother with carnal abandon :) http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf

I am not 100% sure this is what you wanted but I have given it a go: Parameters: - 25999 lbs weight (sorry couldn't get it bang on 26000 for some reason it was always 1 above or 1 below). - Fuel set to unlimited (to maintain aircraft weight). - Clean aircraft. - Sea level. - No wind. - G effects turned off. Results: a. I tried a turn at M0.83 but the pilot blacks out after a second or two so I had to turn the G effects off. 1. I perform a series of circles, full aft stick maintaining about M0.83: Max AoA achieved is about 7-8 degrees, G is 9.0 2. I bleed speed to find out where the 15-degree AoA point is and it looks like its around M0.64, G is 8.8g. I hope this track is what you wanted and helpful to you and/or the Devs? -S Lift Curve Slope track.trk

This is a well known 'issue' (see below, excluding your thread) with multiple requests for a fix/help/aid, although at the moment, EDs position is 'this is correct and functioning properly', but Newy is investigating it again. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=269568 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=259618 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=259652 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=253253&highlight=roll https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=262359&highlight=roll https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=251445&highlight=roll https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=246967&highlight=roll randomToTEN says it is possible to trim it "for 40+ seconds without major heading/roll deviations", if you watch his vid this does require heads down fiddling with the the trim wheels and takes a significant amount of time to sort out (when compared to using the trim hat on the FA18 for example). Having tried it myself after he showed it to me I still cant get it to work (its like one of my clicks equals two or three of his?). As RT says, the trim is only correct "for 40 seconds +" (he is being modest here it lasts quite some time), but it is still not 'perfect' in terms of what we are 'used' to in other modules - to me it feels more like a 'hack' than a 'fix'/'correct operation'. The way RT trims it out (using yaw) does result in a diminished roll, but as a result it imparts yaw input to the aircraft trim so the aircraft is (ever so slightly) on the crab. However, I do recommend you watch his vid as it does show the 'art of the possible' as things currently stand, maybe it will work for you (hopefully as a temporary solution)? See link below (first page, a few posts down - thanks RT!): https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=269568 However, using the yaw trim to fix this issue of the TGP or some other asymmetric configuration does raise some questions: 1) If both FA18c and F16c are of the same generation and both fly by wire, why does it take so much effort to trim out in the F16 vs the FA18? 2) Why do we need to use yaw input to correct for asymmetric configurations on the F16 where the trim hat (roll) is all that is needed to fix such an issue in the FA18c? I have spoken to a number of vastly experienced simmers (in some cases, RL pilots) ALL of whom say the F16 is just does not feel like it is behaving correctly in terms of trim when asymmetrically configured. When you compare it to other aircraft within its peer group that are also developed by ED (A10c, FA18c), it simply does not feel right/the same in terms of ability to trim the aircraft when loaded asymmetrically. This begs the question - why do other such modules (the FA18 being VERY similar in to the F16) not have this issue but the F16 does? I would add that I am not saying that the FA18c trims perfectly via the trim hat - just that it is much easier to get it close to perfect for much longer periods of time. If we wanted to look at things in terms of 'pure realism' (a somewhat flawed argument but some like to go down this path), even IF this is normal behaviour for the F16, a RL pilot keeps their right hand on the stick and uses muscle memory/feel to adjust the trim wheels via the panel with their left hand, keeping their head up. Virtual pilots do not have this luxury unless they have a very advanced set up. IMHO the current situation therefore detracts from the 'immersive/realistic experience' (rather than adding to it) as it causes significant issues for the virtual pilot. The VP needs to look down, hand off stick, click things, look up, look back down, hand off stick, click things, rinse repeat. All this to still not perfectly achieve something that most of us are used to being able to do from the trim hat on the stick in any other module. This results in an 'emotional' and not a pleasant experience when trying to take off as a two ship in close echelon, or when flying in close echelon as a 4 ship, or when taking fuel from a tanker (either forming as a flight or on the boom as a single) to name but a few scenarios that in any other aircraft simply would not be a factor no matter how it was configured. I have been virtual flying for over 25 years and I have never had an issue trimming any type of aircraft in any sim. I agree with you that (as things stand at the moment) the F16s trim functions (hat or wheel) seem too coarse to trim the F16 well (not perfectly, as I dont think 'perfect' can be truly achieved as you say) but to the same level of accuracy/stability as the A10c or the FA18c without some degree (pun intended) of noticeable roll and/or yaw remaining. It has actually got to the point where people I fly with choose not to fly with a TGP as it just makes the game un-enjoyable. I for one am in danger of getting an RSI in my wrist for the amount of constant correction the resulting drift causes having fired a single AMRAAM or loaded a TGP :-S I am afraid for now all you can do is add your views and a +1 to the thread linked below and hope that either ED find/acknowledge an error in the module and fix the issue (there is still some hope for this) or (as per suggestions in the thread linked below) they show some degree of benevolence and put some kind of 'player aid' into the options for the sim for those of us that find ourselves unable to trim the aircraft and choose to fly the aircraft anachronistically. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=253253 -S

Pikey, Thanks for your detailed response but I think perhaps I have not been very clear in what I need? I need to have: Flight A: Take off time say 0810 Flight B: Take off time say 0812 Flight C: Take off time say 0814 Flight D: Take off time say 0816 *Note all these flights are taking off from the same airbase. The reason i need this is because naturally 16 A/C cant take off from 1 airbase at the same time I need to set the mission so that all aircraft arrive at their target point at a specific time, flying the route at specific ground speeds. This is not for triggers but rather to honour a time over target criteria for the mission and to ensure pilots are flying at suitable speeds (not to fast/slow etc). The issue I have is that unless there is some way to set/offset/modify the take off time for each flight such that it looks like the example above, I cannot then compute a required ToT as each flights ToT is set from the sim start time (0800). This then has a knock on impact to the G/S of the aircraft needs to fly en-route. Thus the only way I can 'hack' this is by artificially extending the length of each flight (not practical for the mission) or by reducing the contract G/S (not desirable). I appreciate that once we get more functionality on the F16 (the aircraft we fly) we will be able to adjust our ToTs by +/- whatever and this whole issue would go away, but this is still a 'hack' for a problem that I am sure has an answer somewhere? I mean, how hard can it be to have it so that mission designers can set up a specific take off time for human flights from which all other STP/TGT ToTs are calculated and that allow me as a mission designer to set the required flight speed between STPs. I would again reference the Falcon BMS mission planner/mission builder that utilises this exact functionality (and also converts G/S to IAS or TAS as desired by the mission designers for even more effective flight planning - but then this is another issue for another day). -S

+1 For SDB. I appreciate that perhaps they are not available on 'our' F16, but they are available on other F16s. I would still love to see these on 'our' F16 regardless of the realism. -S

Oldtime - I am not sure that vid will be helpful to them as it has no continual telemetry nor is it from the perspective of the F16. Even still, they prefer actual tracks from DCS. To help them out are you able to provide the tacview and (ideally for them) a track file of the incident or make one for them? Hope you issue gets resolved. -S

That is a beast of a machine you are running! :-S -S

Hi there, I am trying to set a flight to have an exact take of time so that I can plan for an exact time on target (using carret and ToT functions in say the FA18 or the F16 (when it is implemented)). How do I set up human flights so that they take off at a specific time and that all other steerpoints are calculated from the take of time (rather than the spawn time or whatever). I know in the FA18 you can re-set the ToT so that you can adjust your flight time once you are in the sim, but I am hoping to set this all up before even getting into the sim (if its possible)? For extra (probably unnecessary) clarity, what I am hoping to achieve is: T+0m: Pilots spawn into paused start mission and begin starting their aircarft. T+10m: Flight begins to taxi to hold short. T+12m: Flight arrives at hold short and waits for a pre-set T+0h15m take off time. T+13m: Flight positions on runway. T+15m: Flight takes off per the pre-set take off time. (All times in the flight path are calculated from this point that we shall call 'mission time' or 'M'). (T+15m) M+0m: Take off (eg. STP1). (T+18m) M+3m: Arrive at STP2. (T+25m) M+10m: Arrive at STP3. And so on. I hope this makes sense, but for one last bit of further clarity, what I really am aiming for is something more akin to mission planning in Falcon BMS, where all the steerpoints are calculated from a take off time, not (as is default in DCS) the point the mission un=-pauses. Thanks in advance :thumbup: -S

Hi guys, I am hoping someone can help me out. I am looking to place a couple of 'targets' into a mission for BFM training. However, I specifically want them to fight in the horizontal plane and not the in the vertical. I have tried Mig29s and Su27s and they almost always (and often immediately) go vertical in the merge. But for the training I wish to achieve I am looking for a turning fighter where the Ai will typically stay in the horizontal and will not go vertical. Does anyone have any suggestions of what Ai fighter aircraft would best meet these conditions - I dont really care what nation they naturally belong to so long as they are a jet fighter of some description. Kind regards, -S