mpdugas

In case I'd missed this along the way, does DCS support multi-crew in a single aircraft module yet? That is, more than one player in a single aircraft module at the same time, e.g. two players in the Hawk at the same time?

Congrats!! You win the prize for the closest guess...whatever that prize is.

I was having some fun with mirrors in VR, because shifting my viewpoint would make the mirror viewpoint shift also. Seems like that may be broken; now my HMD view of mirrors is static, no matter what angle I look at them from. Did I inadvertently mess-up a setting, or do I need to run a repair? At one point in time, I was able to turn my head so much so that I was looking down, in the mirror, into the 3D model itself, and seeing the turbine fan sitting there, spinning by its lonesome self. Now the view in the mirror does not change angle. Suggestions? :joystick:

Would it be possible to update this FAQ? https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/faq/505/ :thumbup:

Seems like Tacview should do what real-time aerial digital reconnaissance already does. Options to limit it, or scale its capabilities downward, for whatever reason, might be made as part of the program, but with the availability of AWACs platforms that many nation-states already employ, why limit it altogether? Seems like this is something every mature Air Force already does; why shouldn't the full capability be available to DCS users, or any simulation users, for that matter? It would fit in seamlessly with Combined Arms, for instance. You could even go so far as to associate it with an aircraft platform as part of any MP environment.

I don't believe that Starway made any changes to the runways, etc. See my earlier post, showing the missing textures on the runway/taxiway in Sukhimi; that was caused by my error in moving original DCS texture zip files out of the DCS main terrains sub-folder. I got the missing texture error when I only used Starway's zip files in the vfstextures sub-folder. Are you asking Starway to make them different? I'm not sure I am addressing your post correctly; I may be misunderstanding you.

Yes, but JSGME does not copy the ZIP files for textures over correctly; I had to do them manually. Thanks for the quick reply; I found the problem.

Looks like I have a small problem here. Any ideas?

I'm in...

I bought a new PC. I installed the base, free DCS World on it. I logged in using my DCS account with all my purchases. I accepted the login offer to install additional modules which I have purchased: 1) BS2, which I purchased on Steam; and 2) FC3, which I purchased on the DCS website; and 3) MiG-21, which I purchased on Steam The first two module installation processes went normally, and I entered my keys as each StarForce activation dialogue box opened, and all were accepted without incident. I opened DCS each time to ascertain that the module installed properly. When I opened DCS after the MiG-21 installation, I am told that I am logged out, and no module activation was available. When I try to log in, the system blocks me and says my MiG-21 number is invalid. Actually, it just throws a key string at me and says that key is invalid; I have to figure out what it means. It doesn't tell me which module is affected. So, I have three installs completed, but I can no longer log in and finish the remainder of my modules. The MiG-21 key is one that Mr. Dackard has confirmed, on previous occasions, to ED, to be correct. He sent it to me because of other DCS issues with their MiG-21 module keys. I also noticed that the Steam keys, for BS2, MiG-21 and A10C, which I had previously bound to my DCS account, no longer show up in my DCS profile, nor do I know how to do that, again. That is, there seems to be no way to tell DCS that a Steam key is associated with my account, as before was possible. As the situation stands, I cannot log in and enter my keys under the module installation routine. Can someone please sort this out and let me go on with using my purchases? p.s. I turned in a ticket with substantially the same language, because I do not know where to actually make my problem known.

Since the thread, whether it is old or not, is marked "solved", and the issue of the negative AoA was unchanged, then I gathered that the possibility of flight under negative AoA was possible and was an accepted notion. How would you read that otherwise? Thanks you for your efforts to illustrate the solution here, but your screenshots are not taken at a steady-state and that is what is of concern here. They appear to be taken at transitory moments, since 50% power (DCS screenshot) at that altitude will not yield supersonic speed. The flight panel screenshot shows 100% power, which is improbable, too. The Tacview screen shows a positive rate of climb of .6 m/min, and a speed that is significantly over-limit. Still, your AoA of +1 degree under these conditions is incorrect; you would be descending if that AoA is true, since the MiG-21 bis cruises, supersonic, at an AoA of 3 degrees, yet the screenshot shows a slight climb. None of these screenshots illustrate the original area of concern, nor do they illustrate that the flight model is correct yet. I appreciate your defense of LNS, but I doubt that they require us to reinforce their already-amazing performance with the MiG-21 bis model. I would rather just leave the solution in their hands, since everyone here admires their concern for accuracy and detail. Perhaps LNS can address the question about the construction of the nose-cone and inlet ring at their leisure. I turned it in as a minor bug, because I sincerely doubt that LNS or DCS actually use the physical shape of their models to interact with the environment; I would suppose that they use look-up tables or the like to address flight modelling. Thanks for explaining your initial screenshot and offering these additional ones to further explain your position. I am content that LNS will, eventually, address the matter.

I'm not quite sure what your test illustration is supposed to show, since the conditions of flight are different than proposed in the original thread on this topic; you are higher and faster than the special conditions under which this negative AoA was supposed to occur. Can you elaborate on what you mean to show by your illustration?

Hello, Mr. Dackard; After I read through the whole post concerning the MiG-21's negative angle of attack at low altitude and supersonic speeds (http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=135653&highlight=angle+attack) I was left with an uneasy suspicion that the answer, i.e. that a slight negative AoA was normal under such conditions, was really not correct. I have several old MiG-21 references that show more detail about the construction of the MiG-21 bis, and they further suggest that perhaps your flight model may be affected, among other issues, by a discrepancy in the construction of the alignment of your MiG's nose-cone and inlet ring assembly. I do not have your 3D model to examine, but my visual examination of this area of the 3D model of the aircraft, from close-ups of it in the game, suggest that the nose-cone center-line (i.e. the line drawn from the tip of the nose-cone perpendicular to the inlet ring) is parallel to the fuselage center-line. It also appears that the inlet ring itself is also constructed to be perpendicular to the fuselage center-line. If so, and if your flight model takes this alignment into account, for purposes of considering the presence of disturbed airflow affecting available AoA, then the whole dynamic flight model may be adversely affected by this choice. I say that because, in the real MiG-21 bis, the nose-cone and inlet ring center-lines are not aligned parallel to the fuselage center-line, but rather, they both have a 3 degree negative angle relative to aircraft center-line. I confirmed this by corresponding with a Finnish Air Force pilot who has access to a MiG-21 bis in the museum at Kymi airbase near Kotka. Please take a look at the illustration that he forwarded to me. This off-central alignment was done to make the airflow over the nose-cone, at supersonic speed, create the proper shock wave at the inlet ring. If the nose-cone and inlet ring are parallel to the fuselage center-line, then the shock-wave from the airflow over the MiG-21, at high speed AoA, would strike the inlet ring off-center, because the MiG-21 bis typically flies supersonic at a 3 degree positive AoA. The real MiG 21 bis construction compensates for the 3 degree positive AoA at supersonic speed by aligning the tip of the cone and face of the inlet ring to be perpendicular to the airflow over the fuselage by canting them downwards by 3 degrees. The normal MiG-21 bis positive cruise AoA is very much at odds with your present flight model which requires the plane be flown at a negative AoA under conditions described in the forum thread; in those circumstances, the shock wave would strike the inlet ring at an angle that would be 5.5 degrees off-center. That would be the result if your cone and inlet were constructed at right angles to the fuselage center-line, which is what I suspect is the case in your 3D model. I really doubt that your flight model, or DCS world for that matter, is this precise, but I offer this to you because the 3D model alignment of the MiG-21 nose-cone and inlet of your version of the MiG-21 appears to be wrong. I really do believe that the negative AoA at low altitude and high speed is also wrong, but until the 3D model construction is confirmed as correct, then this can't be measured. My last contact with the Finnish Air Force pilot tells me this: "The whole MiG-21 nose intake including the lip and and the cone is really tilted slightly downwards to adjust the intake perpendicular to the average high speed flight airflow to ensure symmetrical airflow into the intake. This is specially important at supersonic speeds due to the cone produced shock wave formation. The angle to the fuselage reference line is 3 degrees (see the attached pictures). The angle is close to the wing angle of attack at high speeds. The angle of attack of the MiG-21 is always positive when not flying inverted. The symmetrical airfoil wing does not produce positive lift at negative angle of attacks. At high speeds like 500 kt the lift coefficient at 8800 kg is about 0,15 which corresponds to an angle of attack of some 2-3 degrees. I have flown the MiG-21BIS at at sea level (100 meters) at an indicated airspeed of 1300 km/h (1.06 Mach), which is the maximum allowed indicated airspeed (Vmo). It can go even faster, but this is the limit. At altitude you are limited to 2.05 Mach (Mmo) due to directional stability. It can go even faster, but this is the limit." I hate to be the bearer of difficult news, but I think that there are some fundamental problems with the design of your 3D model and with the way the flight model of the MiG-21 itself is represented in DCS World.

Liquid cooling is very useful in normal running; it is quiet and less stressful on your motherboard, since there is so little mass actually attached to the CPU socket. My Kraken is a liquid, closed-loop All-in-One (AIO) CPU cooler. As I mentioned earlier, when one of my Kraken radiator fans failed, the other fan managed just fine until I could replace it, all on "silent" mode. Even if an AIO fails, you will have a little bit more time to safely shutdown, because the volume of cooling liquid acts like a safety reservoir under conditions of thermo-siphoning. It also heats up slower, and cools down slower, both of which reduces thermal shock to the electronic components. I've run AIO for years, and never a leak. I've had CPU and GPU liquid AIOs, with never an issue, but leaking does remain a possibility. However, if you mount a large air cooler to your motherboard, that mass will constantly pull at a right-angle on your CPU socket mount, and may very well bend or crack the main-board over time. The risk of an AIO leaking is but a possibility; the bending effect of gravity is a certainty. A small force, of course, but a constant one. The thrust of the fans (1 to 3 fans in a large air system) cooling the air tower also contribute to CPU socket strain, although, again, only in a small fashion. You could arrange fan thrust to offset the gravitational pull, but that would interfere with case cooling. More than one fan on an air cooler also creates a bit of resonant vibration in the cooler tower itself, because they cannot spin at the same speed. Again, that is a small force, but it acts constantly over time, and it will eventually have an effect. The liquid AIO cooling plate has no thrust component. Kraken is not at all the same as a Noctua cooler. The former is an liquid AIO, the latter is an air cooler. Large air coolers block cooling air movement to most of the circuitry near itself on the motherboard, reducing cooling to components overshadowed by it. Those can be some of the hottest components on the motherboard. For the same reason, choose a video card that exhausts its waste heat out of the case, and not just back into the case itself. That's like robbing Peter to pay Paul. Liquid AIOs for both CPUs and GPUs exhaust all waste heat out of the case. Finally, two liquid AIOs have less fans than a traditional air cooler, since all AIO fans are vent-to-outside fans. My GPU radiator, with its single fan, was mounted in my upper back case wall, and the CPU cooler with radiator and fan(s) was on the top of the case. With an air cooler, you normally have those same case fans, as well as the fans attached to the air cooling tower itself, which can be as few as one and up to three. Fewer fans means less noise and a slight lessening in power requirements. You're getting lots of good advice here. Every system type has its attributes and faults. When my money permits, I will shift to the EVGA 980Ti hybrid (or whatever is its nearest equivalent at the time) and a nice, large, curved, high resolution monitor with Gsync, perhaps like a Predator (if they ever get their quality issues sorted out).

I am using the same motherboard, except as an AMD build for my FX9590, and I really am happy with the feature set. Your CPU choice is a well-rounded one; focus mainly on single-thread performance, since very few programs use more than one core, save for graphics rendering. I have 16GB RAM, and very rarely see DCS use more than 2.5GB RAM, but I am running 1.5.3 and have no NTTR map. With a GTX 970 (slight O/C) and no O/C on the CPU, I see average 95 fps at 1920 x 1200, high settings. It is smooth and stutter-free. I was using an AMD R9 295X2 video card, but I saw absolutely no benefit using Cross-fire; most games still are not programmed for multi-GPUs, so your deferring that decision for a second card, until you see the need in a 4K build, is probably a good idea. I am guessing the 980Ti can handle a single monitor in 4K, but that is just a guess. I believe in PS overkill, because nothing kills electronics like under-volting, so I run a PC Power and Cooling 1200 watt supply (mainly for the benefit of the AMD card/FX9590 combo I mentioned earlier). Consider liquid cooling both the CPU and GPU; there are very nice AIO cooling kits for both (e.g EVGA sells a nice AIO GTX 980 Ti with a cooling kit as their 'hybrid' unit). I am using a Kraken X60 and it kept my FX9590 running nicely, even when one of the radiator fans failed. I rarely see more that 40 degrees C on my CPU, even under 8 cores at 100% sustained load. So much for the FX9590 running hot-and-hungry. I find the MSI motherboard sound solution perfectly adequate with a pair of Bose noise-cancelling headphones. If you have the cash and the slots, buy a dedicated sound card if you like. Cases are the most subjective choice of all, but be sure you can have good airflow; that is why I use AIO cooling. Those massive air coolers block a lot of airflow over the other main board components. I run three intake fans and three exhaust. You have chosen some nice starting points, and this is just my opinion speaking.

If I understand the thread correctly, and I've viewed the demonstration mission, it appears that it is a tracking discrepancy that was first seen when the 6DOF SU-25 cockpit was introduced, and not apparent in the older SU-25 cockpit (i.e. non-6DOF cockpit). Is that what you mean, OP?

Depending on your GPU, you could have a look at the Acer Predator curved gaming monitor, which comes in both Freesync and Gync versions. However, both Acers' display WHQD. I am probably going to get a flat 4k/5K (UHD) version with Gsync, rather than the lower res of the curved versions, perhaps from Dell, like the UP3214Q. I like the curved effect, but dislike the low resolution.

I think a single AN/AWG-9 aircraft can launch and engage six targets by AIM-54s simultaneously...hopefully, the simulated AIM-54 will be more successful for LNS than it was for the USN and USAF.

There are some 3rd party folks here who have made modules for DCSW who released their products without even training missions or documentation for their vehicles. And then there is LNS, who goes above and beyond in their support for their 'old' MiG-21, when any other 'modern' business would have just moved on already, leaving behind their 85%-complete product as 'good enough'. Oh yes, LNS can count on my purchase of the Tomcat as soon as they desire to put it in the store! I really can't wait!!

I play with exactly the same setup. I open CH Control Manager and calibrate each device, then create a simple map that I call "calibration" from the results. It has no key assignments at all. I download the map to the three devices in CH Control Manager, and the set the devices to Direct mode. I leave CM running, then launch DCS. From there, I just use the "options" portion of the DCS UI to assign the game commands to my hardware keys. If I don't do that, DCS modules perform pretty much the way you describe them; jittery and un-calibrated. The only difference I see in your description is that you don't mention calibration and mapping. When I do it as I have described, then all is well.

I found a work-around, of sorts, to this module manger issue: I went back to my account and made sure all module keys were bound to my login. In every instance, except one, that made all my DCS purchases show up. The Belsimtek Mi-8 simply does not appear in the module manager, even though my key is bound and I have plenty of activations left. So I used the command prompt to manually install it, which worked. I could not find a direct path to binding non-DCS keys to my login on the DCS website, so I fudged a little, by using the DCS page for binding their keys, and it worked. Just click on the "details" for any order, and use that page to check for the license number of the DCS purchase you are using. Highlight the key number, and check the copied DCS key license number in the "license check" on the left side of that page. That will bring up another page, with another "license check" box, use that blank box for pasting the non-DCS key into. It will let you bind a key (if it recognizes it) to your account for a Steam key. Maybe someday that path (i.e. binding non-DCS keys to login) will be made a bit more direct, but for now, this simple work-around also functions.

see below for my results

I want to go to Las Vegas; thanks for your generosity!

I found that area of the ME after poking around, but even when I went to every message in the training mission, and checked the "clear view" box, DCS 1.5 would not let me save the change to a new or original mission file, so it was all for naught. Thanks, though, for that; as you say, "a picture is worth..."

This is a change that DCS made to Russian aircraft; see my thread on SU25-T bugs in 1.5. Minimum speed shown now is 80 kph.