Fri13

There are basic changes like that. But nothing dramatic.

You should be able to convert any point to another point. You would get a list of wanted points on left and on right, and you can example make a Mark Point to become Target Point, or Waypoint as Mark Point. I don't recall now what was exactly the page you needed to be for that. It was around information as well how you should be able see all Target Points (except T0) as a diamonds in the EHSD. I do recall as well that you can't transfer any point to CAS, without entering the coordinates from one side to another. But it is possible it was only at that status of Harrier.

This might acquire again mentioning of this valuable asset that is missing: Thanks to @Northstar98 collecting the samples. Those would again help everyone in all maps.

"Just keep them disabled" I take you meant opt-in feature for simulator mode, and then opt-out when in game-mode? As considering that how many hard core fan would get upset if they need to disable assisting features first after installation. Comparing to that those who would be first timers and they could enable it from settings, wouldn't find it bad as they already have the option.

Have you considered NoTrackIR or was it NoIRFaceTrack or something? You need a webcam and good lighting. It should work many cases excellent manner. I have used touch controllers since ED implemented the support for their finger functions (at begin you had only gloves moving around). I used to use a mouse, HMD center point with mouse clicks on joystick, a trackball, a touchpad and some others. I have not used the PointCTRL that is praised here. But I am waiting now that ED improves their just added Leap Motion support so I can get away from grabbing those from lap (easier than mouse). The virtual hands. https://youtube.com/shorts/Y60Erjxczr0?feature=share https://youtube.com/shorts/97Cr2AgjDP0?feature=share

I would guess that you speculated, querying that would it even be possible get the data and is there legal parts to need to be dealt etc. So just "feeling around".

I hold the opinion that whole EW could be implemented very believable and acceptable manner for each system. It requires that who designs it will spend effort to understand the topic from public materials and will openly explain their decisions and sources why and how things are done so community could help. And results would be very much better than we have now even when a lot of of educated guesses would be required to be made. We don't need 80% capabilities, I would estimate that 40-50% is achievable and that is alot.

I apologize that I didn't read your original post but intervened with a suggestion that you had already made. IMHO DCS World should provide various assisting features and even gaming level features (I was happy first that Modern Air Combat was first coming to DCS World as "FC4", but sad it was later cancelled and made separate standalone game) as long it is not away from the priority of through level authentic simulation. And air refueling assisting features ain't such that everyone needs, but it is not on their way either. And when it helps anyone else to learn and complete missions that requires/offers air refueling, then it is just great bonus for DCS World overall. Why someone is against an idea that doesn't touch them is odd. The argument that everyone can do it, or learn it easily is not logical. And it is sad that ED has made a decision not to implement anything like this at the moment. Because your idea is easy to produce and would be huge help to start with.

It has been for long long time so. Maybe from the start because I don't remember did it require any off-center position for cyclic. What I do remember is that it needed little pedal to stay straight. That is flying with just one control at the time, there is 12 m/s wind. First just the collective for various altitudes, speeds etc. Then using a pedals in full for left/right and to make full rotations, turning to both directions etc, all the time the collective is in one position at that moment. Cyclic is not touched at all. SAS is disabled and all channels are off. It is not ED...

Excellent summary. I would have liked to see F-16A and F-18A first, then upgraded to current ones for small fee. It would have made a lot more sense. We can take AIM-7 for hornet and AIM-9 for viper, but it isn't exactly same, but doable. And maybe acceptable. 10 years is fairly long difference, but not so huge, like now is to offer one all datalinks and helmet mounted sights and all. Right now I am waiting three planes. 1) MiG-23MLA. I am sucker for that. 2) A-6. It is most beautiful American made plane (most beautiful of them all is MiG-23). 3) Because amazing C-101, the Mirage F-1 planes. I can't wait to see those starting to drop in five different variants... If something modern would take my attention, it would be Deka made Su-30... Something from 2005-2010 to offer step in modern two seater Flanker. But give more 70-80's plane and it is more interesting. 10 years difference with a good story for mission and there is nothing so wrong. Be it a -75 plane against -85 plane and they are both interesting to fly. As long the avionics are hard to use. ps. Isn't Viggen from late 80's upgrade as well?

In my opinion "lying" is unwarranted suggestion. You are correct that having plans should already include that information is available and it is known to be possible. It would be better then otherwise say "we wish...." as that doesn't mean that something is possible or would happen.... Just like Wags said "we would like to...". IMHO I like to first see the coming me FLIR simulation, as it should be more dramatic than we have now and what sniper pod could offer. But we need to wait. It is the hard part.

He is correct that the graphical assistant should be repositioned so that you focus on the important part. I would make it like a ironsight for a rifle, you align it with the position where you need to be and it stays fixed to the tanker model itself. Be it a ring at aft and smaller ring at the front. You fly by looking at the rings to keep them aligned and when you have them joined then you have a proper distance. If you deviate from the position, then you see it visually as the rings start to be out of alignment. Forget the visual indicator for a throttle and just give visual idea that does player need to move forward or backward by separation of the rings. This way player would be looking at the proper part of the tanker and have visual idea of the positioning. The problem is just still that it doesn't help people who need the assisting because hardware or their skills. It would be just a assisting feature for those who in first hand can perform the air refueling task. 1/3 of the respondent agreed that there should be a assting feature for those who have challenges for whatever reasons.... It doesn't mean that it is for them, or anything like that, just that they have a opinion it would be good to have and be opt-in feature for those who needs it. Considering that in the previous thread there was multiple ideas, like mine was a "tractor beam" kind that has adjustable setting that allows player to adapt the effectiveness and functionality to their skills. IMHO when you do that, you learn as well visually to position yourself for it and start to handle the throttle and stick if possible. And those who would gain more skill from it would benefit from it. Those who would find a assisting to make them able do air refueling would enjoy from adding that task to their mission and doctrine. This idea is about just a visual indicator like the flight path gates now in the editor, that are guiding you to fly a specific route through the gates without any assting. But let's say that one has a slight hand shaking or one doesn't have a VR (that makes air refueling easier) or has just a one eye or have a joystick that has hysteris etc etc, the visual indicator wouldn't help them in that case. ED has stated that their plan is not to add a such assisting feature for air refueling. Relatively small take in that poll but if going against statistics, 1/3 is major audience proportionally. It isn't away from me, it wouldn't be on the way for anyone who can do it already. But if it would help those who can't do it (for whatever reason) then why not? We have easy radio, easy flight modeling, easy targeting, we have snapviews, trackIR etc. All kind assting features for those who need it or want it. But it is not away from those who do not want to enable them. People just should not attack against those who supports the idea by claiming that they need it. As anyone supporting assistant for air refueling doesn't mean that they require it. So saying anything about others how they would already be able do air refueling if put the time and effort that was for writing support for new feature.... It is fallacy.

Still no TPOD on stations 2 and 6. Discussion in 2019 about it: The A1-AV8BB-NFM-000 from 2011 states that MIL−STD−1760 has been incorporated, and Change number AFC−420 that LITENINGg has been incorporated to stations 2, 5 and 6 (page 7, Summary of Applicable technical directives). Visual indicator is added circuit breakers. Here is again comment from Zeus in 2018 to say that he adds TPOD available for Stations 2 and 6. Only stations are 5, 4B and 3 are possible in 2021.

I think it would be OK if the sight system would actually show where the grenades would approximately fall. Tested it today and at about 800 meters the CCIP was on the target and grenades did fly 300-400 meters over the targets. This from a 150 meters altitude in shallow dive from 500 meters at 2500 m or so. It is just easiest thing to eye the target range and shoot short bursts to confirm the range and then go by the hip in final moment at 1000 meters or so. If you manage to get the grenades close at the targets, then it is effective, but that is the problem as it is so super accurate that grenades hit so tiny area and often misses.

Example in Harrier a LOFT mode is bombs delivery by system providing you the increased range to drop bombs by guiding you to distance and how to pull a constant 4g upwards to loft the bombs at the target. It is not same thing as AUTO mode that is not suitable for lofting, but it is the sub-mode of the AUTO delivery. The idea of it is that you have better accuracy for release timing and maximum "standoff" distance to avoid local air defenses.

Some fall for it, some not. Let's face it, when a company puts a version number to their product, they are in trouble. If windows 10 would have been the "last windows", then it wouldn't had 10 in it name. It would be just "Windows". Same thing is with iPhone etc. Google has at least learned it with Chrome. No one really cares is it Chrome 54 or 62 or whatever. Apple should already call it just as "iPhone" and "iPad" and that is it. Then behind the device there is the version number, and forget all the idiotic 1,2, 6, 8 SE, 10, 11 Pro etc etc. You just write the year in it. iPhone (2021) iPhone (2023) Windows (2021/1) Windows (2021/2) And that is it. It eventually ends to same as car manufacturing, you have a model and you have year. "Toyota Prius '06" or "Ford Mustang '21" When you go to search parts, you are asked then these details, but otherwise you are just driving "Toyota Prius" or "Mustang". Apple had it right as well with mac. You had iMac 24" with 2007 behind it, but then they really needed to F things up by adding "late" or "early" to it. Camera manufacturers are as well in big trouble. Even when they upgrade something 4-5 years (or like Sony every year almost) the they can't just stop using numbers or "mark II" and "mark VII". SERIOUSLY, just call it as "EOS 1D" or "Alpha 7" and write the year number in the plate bottom of the camera and digitally in the "about" menu.

The requirement for Microsoft account and internet is nothing new. Windows 10 is already digital licensed. You need a Microsoft account to register the license to Microsoft, and that requires a internet connection. After you have installed the windows, you register the license to your account and it is tied to that hardware setup. Then you can create your own local user accounts as you like and you never need to have internet connection if you don't want to. This is same as with example Xbox that after purchase you need to register the Xbox to your account and after that you never need a internet connection to play with it (unless games requires). This is for Microsoft to track sold consoles and then authorize games in the account to that specific console of the owner. Who thinks that they can easily run these days anything without internet are having hard time to do much when content is delivered over internet. No more games on optical disks, no more updates copied with another disk etc. You use internet to install and update software. But when the game is such like blizzard Diablo that you need to be online to play single player and when internet connection is cut the game stops there, then it is wrong.

Elitism gets high octanes again...

I think I got the same problem in patch that brought Mi-24P. Two DCS process are running, both will be increasing resources use at about 25% of CPU, and memory of 6-8 GB of each. Have not yet had time to trace the reason. But will cause severe fps drops after first spawn and requires killing both process. After 15 minutes it stays like that, the CPU is eaten alive but used RAM is freed. Killing either one doesn't affect the other.

The Su-27 and Mig-29 share a lot of choices. Example in the forum I linked is mentions from the Sukhoi designers how they were instructed to look the Mig-29 cockpit design that's design was completed, to share the systems and functions. Like why the color displays were as well abandoned and used the same etc. It is not in the manual as it is in the SPO-15 maintenance manual and its blow-up charts. Well that is the limitation of the FC3, but it is still incorrect to say that you can't have a range information without radar, or that it only gets range information using laser range finder. I think you will get the point. In a Mig-21Bis the SPO-10 at the moment is simulated such way that when ever you get locked on - ALL the lights will turn On. You have zero situational awareness that in which direction you are locked on, or is there other threats around you because you just have "full panic mode". This was for years, and after countless bug reports and discussions about how illogical it is and what the maintenance manuals say, developer finally implemented a more proper functionality, but they put it behind "Experimental" tab in the game settings, that is not respected in the multiplayer. The proper function is that when you get locked, only the light from that direction is illuminated. So you have situational awareness that from where you are being engaged and you can maneuver properly. When you take information about the systems, you learn their logical reason to exist and what is their purpose and functionality. If you start question something, you can find out is it logical or not based your information. And when you find out that something is illogical that is clearly against the purpose of the device, you can start to search for the answer to "why" and "how" questions. You need to first ask from yourself that if you are given a RWR system that has means to tell you the type and direction of the threat, do you think it is logical that those capabilities are not used at all in it but it is just functioning as with just one or two sources at the time? Even when you don't know the specifications, but when someone does something then there is a logic in it. Even when the doing is idiotic (that is why there is no such answer as "I don't know" when asked about why did someone do something completely stupid/wrong, because there is always something in the person mind to do something based to some idea and information). And when you start to look at the more complex devices that are built and designed, you start to see there the logic and the functions even if you are not directly stated something, and they can be found to be so later on with the actual devices and engineering manuals. There are many who talks about lack of IFF and when implemented then its perfect capability to tell is target a friend, hostile or unknown. Example the Razbam might be first one to actually model IFF properly for its inaccuracy to be useful decide who is friend and who is not in the close proximity.

I don't talk about myself. OP has not stated that what he want to do and if you carefully read his posts, specifically has not said that he just want to fly. He said that he has experience from the Jane's Longbow from long time ago, so it is safe to assume that he wants to do the combat (or otherwise he wouldn't be in DCS World but in some other ones) as well, and that is the thing here. The learning to fly a helicopter != learning to fly the helicopter without weapons and it systems. Many will jump to these planes never spending time to even learn how to start-up it. It is not a shame. Even a ED directors enjoy to fly without knowing how to start them. If someone enjoy from the combat, they can do the combat parts and enjoy from it even when you are at start for flying them.

I would love to recommend the Gazelle, but it flight and control modeling is totally wrong, so player will learn incorrect habits (even with the table joystick etc). This because it has one of the most enjoyable weapon arsenal (four missiles, few rockets, gun and IR missiles) and it is so cool to have a second small joystick to move that Viviane and have a FLIR with it. I would take the Huey for the lightweight flying and the feeling. But not for the combat. Its weapons are just unsuitable for DCS World at the moment, where the AI door gunners does better job than rockets with it. The KA-50 is fancy, it is easy to fly (difficult to learn) because it is so automated, but doesn't teach the traditional helicopter functions. It has at the moment the best weapons and targeting systems for day-time use (gazelle has the FLIR). The Mi-8 is maybe still the best cargo helicopter, and you can use rockets, gunpods and grenades to make serious damage, but only if you get close enough. So not so suitable in DCS against AI that can nail you. And this leaves you for Mi-24P. No troop transport yet, no extra rocket loading from cargo space, a fancy AT missiles (with questionable sight stabilization at the moment, as well pilot sight accuracy, but it is all Early Access) that is in overall package the best at the moment for combat. You just don't really hover with it and sneak around like in KA-50. You go and you attack and you repeat the attack with new heading. If wanted for sneak action, I would wait the Kiowa Warrior that should come out this year. The very honorable mention needs to be given for the AH-6J free mod helicopter. The developer (one guy) was hired by Razbam to program the Bo-105 flight modeling (IIRC). It is excellent for just getting in touch with the helicopters overall before making a purchase (better than gazelle in that regard) as you get a minigun and rockets with it. That mod was meant to be a EFM base for other helicopter mods to come. Let's hope and see that modders would see a possibility there. So if I would need to pick one right now, I would have hard time to say between Mi-8, Mi-24 and KA-50.

So much better! I was disappointed when I saw that the projector fading on edges is not modeled. So I was hoping it was just a Early Access thing, and I still do. One reason for this is that DCS doesn't model properly the collimator effect ("design eye position") in the HUD's, that you can't see it if you don't have eyes inside the specific area ("eye box"). This makes all HUD's and gunsights look artificial. This makes such effects that you can see the projected information outside the projector and behind a obstacles etc. A thing that ED should try to get better as the SVG was not so good graphical decision to make the highly detailed projection.

The Flanker A that we have, the Su-27S, shows the target information on the display as well. You get the tactical data just like we have now in Single Player when using the couple EWR units or you have a wingman with you. What does it show in the HUD is another case, as designers opted to freen HUD and MFD instead the original color (red, green and yellow) HUD and CRT display. Showing datalink and radar contacts, missile ranges, who is targeting what etc. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/development-of-the-su-27-cockpit.35031/ Yes it is wrong what we have now, but it does have SPO-15. The wrong part is that it is suppose to be programmable by switching the frequency boards by ground crew, where each category type can be separated. This way when you have ELINT intelligence that what type of radars enemy has in the area, you can combine various radars behind one type as you are not going to have them all at once from same place. As well we don't have the blinking (secondary) that would assist you to separate that what radar is in what direction and mode, and then primary threat as the yellow one with signal strength with logic for its range and main direction. The laser range is to 10 km for dogfight mode and silent attack. And when you have radar active you get range from it. You get as well range information by triangulation with wingmen as the lock angles are sent over datalink to the rest of the group. So in search spread you can see lock lines cross each others and when it is inside the missile range area, you know it range. The balance doesn't come from "They have AIM-120 so we need R-77". The balance comes from that you make a systems work properly. In the reality the systems were already designed to counter each others even with a 10 year difference, there other does have some advantages and disadvantages, but you learn to deal with them by the limitations. Example the R-27 missile is still in operational use today, only now it has been started to be phased out, even when the R-77 has been available for very long time (at the early DCS times it was claimed that Russia didn't have R-77 in service, but years later it was found that it was available and in-service but just not used as people thought that of course R-77 would replace R-27 like AIM-120 did replace the AIM-7). But when we do not have a proper systems modeling and such, the technology can't be used correctly. And that causes the problem. Example the SPO-15 modeling that makes it very limited because very illogical modeling in the first place (just like how SPO-10 was done for the Mig-21Bis, when you get locked you have all lights to light up. The correct logic is still in the experimental mode that can't be forced!). Example the Su-27 datalink for multiplayer. Why can't ED just fix it by implementing the proper group logic that Su-27 pilots get to know each other targeting data by proximity? As we can't group the random people flying all over the places and link them with proper codes, make it distance dependent. Even that would be far better than nothing. Let's say that any flanker that is inside a 50 km radius will link with each other. And zadam, now you have a working datalink where one can extend other radar range or you can actually fly in a good spread and share data. Sure it is not a ~200 km, but it would be far better than now for linking. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MIG-31Datalink.jpg If ED would implement a proper IFF system and virtual grouping (as now we are getting in-game VoIP system as well) where IFF code is required to be set properly to be ID as friend across the side, and then set a group ID to mark the players belong to same group (and only possible to be done before take-off and support proper amount). Then we could have proper datalink operations and even IFF (even if a perfect one without possibilities to receive no reply or distorted reply marking target as non-friendly). DCS is unbalanced because one side have proper modeling and other side doesn't. The Mig-29A would improve this situation, even when it is comparably worse in technology, but it would offer at least many of the systems to be usable. But nothing works properly until ED starts to take Electronic Warfare seriously, not by placing it for a second party task to do - it needs to be ED itself so it is their responsibility and in their hands to make the framework for it all. We have serious limitations with the basic radios, even when working with the AI as wingman and now even more serious limitations when working with ground units in helicopters. This hopefully gets fixed soon, but as Mig-29 is the tactical frontline fighter it needs to have it communications working correctly with the ground forces as well.

I don't think the OP is searching for the high g force simulator as there are only those that military, aircraft manufacturers and NASA use. What I think the OP wants is the motion platform to offer a proper motion to feel the turns. The human brain is very easily fooled with very tiny movements that are not made by body itself, it is from the ape age when we still lived in the trees and you felt smallest movement in the branch etc. Many simply forgets these and think that they need very large motions to experience it, when you just need small ones as long it is rapid and accurate. With just a few degree movements one can fool brain to think it is upside down when it is visually shown as well properly, as it is motion that is sensed and not the position. The human is very weak to sense the attitude, this is problem in under water as well in real flying when flying inside a clouds, you lose in seconds the sense that where is the surface or are you upside down etc. This happens already in the VR as well in DCS where you need to use just instruments to have the idea of your attitude. And all that is achievable with a 500-700 € devices that just can tilt platform by few degrees as long it does it accurately and quickly. In VR you get fooled far faster when visual and physical attitude is changed, when in desktop use you will have visual attitude indicator constantly that you just made a couple degree change.