Torri

IFF was first introduced on WW2 fighters. Unfortunately, they don't function in DCS.

Thanks BN :thumbup:

I agree with a lot of points here; 1. Lack of standardization for lighting across modules. (Internal and external) 2. White glowing dots for units at range. 3. Very excessive F-18 nav lights. I would also add that on some modules the taxi light is way too strong. The lighting update with 2.5.6 was very nice, but broke alot of lighting for modules. Particulary Heatblur and older ED/FC3 modules. I wouldn't go so far as to say that ED "doesn't care." But there are some issues that deserve attention.

+1

That ED doesn't want to add new features for FC3, is understandable. That they don't want to fix old bugs, is what I don't get,

Waiting for that too :) But ED have been nagged to death on that one, so they know we're waiting.

A sarcastic German?? Now I've seen it all :lol:

Is there any possibility of updates on the data cartridge? It would be a massive QoL improvement for the modern jets. Last "official" statement I could find was in June last year..: https://imgur.com/Aa8tATl I understand that priorities shift all the time, and that it's a question of manpower. Just curious... :music_whistling: Especially now that F-16 and F-18 are starting to receive/have received more advanced systems like JDAM, HARM, Harpoon, that work best in a pre-planned mode, the data cartridge would be indespensible in all situations other than very specific-made missions.

While I agree that "down the road" is a very ambigous term in DCS standards, I don't think this should be an excuse to compromise the quality and authenticity of the modules by giving them Frankenstein-esque mixing of features and abilities. I hope that one day ED would look at the option of selling variants at a discount. Imagine F-16AM Block 15 upgrade to original F-16 module for 5$ or whatever. F/A-18A model with analog IFEI and no JHMCS.

Yes

I think we should stick to real world capabilites of the specific model. Otherwise we open a big can of "what about this?" for every single module in DCS. A better solution down the road is to have multiple variants with different capabilities.

Nobody wants infinite G-tolerance, the issue is that the current G-limits are simply way too low. This means that we are not able to use the high G strengths of certain airframes like the F-16 and MiG-29, compared to for example the F-18 which has its strengths in low speed/high AOA.

To clear it up, I was referring to in-game mirrors to look behind your plane :lol:

I could probably double check with buttons instead of axis, but I am 99% certain that the issue lies with the area/point track logic.

We just did

I have the same issue, it's not hardware related. Or if it is, it has to be a problem with how the TGP reacts to slew curve changes. All other slewing operations work perfectly fine and smooth, using the same slew joystick. I think it lies in the TGP tracking logic, as all TGPs across the game suffers from the same issue. (F-16, F-18.) The issue is when the TGP is zoomed in and off angle from the plane. Trying to slew it makes it jerky, as if it's "sticking" to the prior location. The same effect can be observed when using any pod in the A/A tracking mode. (Even F-14's TCS has this issue.)

Basically the title. Currently it feels like watching a screen rather than an actual mirror. The other WW2 sim has stereo mirrors, which makes the whole experience very immersive.

It seems that separating normal audio and helmet audio does not work completely for FC3 REDFOR jets. Some sounds like RWR still play through speakers instead of headset.

Awesome, I'll try it out with a friend then! Thanks for replying, and sorry to dig up a two year old thread :music_whistling:

Is there by any chance a working version for DCS 2.5.6?

I also remember ED saying they were gonna revamp it, but maybe some "refreshing" of their memory is needed :music_whistling: Seeing that "lobbying" for change has worked in other aspects of DCS, I would really like to see a new G-model, personally.

You can already move your head in unrealistic ways with TrackIR and VR, what's your point? I'd much rather that the game be unrealistic in that regard, than not being able to pull high Gs at all.

I don't really see where that 1.5 seconds claim is in the article and I've never heard of that either. I could have overseen it though. But I'm pretty sure that F-16 pilots train to hold 9Gs for an extended period, 15-30 seconds? (Someone please correct me on this) There is no doubt that RL F-16 pilots are trained to withstand 9Gs for way longer than 1,5 seconds.

The G warmups only allow you to sustain 7.8Gs without blacking out, but don't increase peak G tolerance above this. I think now that we have an F-16 in the game, there really should be a revamp to the whole system. The current system does not allow fighting to the strengths of the Viper, and looking at online dogfight servers really expose this. The MiG-29 is also a "victim" of the current G-model.

The blackout limit is at around 7.8 Gs. After this, the more Gs you add only shortens time to GLOC. So 7.8Gs is the max you can sustain. Really simplified system that is in desperate need of an update.