Fri13

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.

Please provide the newer than 2011 manual...

The datalink with the GCI is not the main problem as that is updated only every 10 seconds. The problem is that the group of 4 fighters can not have fast datalink capability (and four groups can connect to each others) where target data is shared, so you see where each flight member is aiming, located and what targets each is suppose to have. This as well allows visually to triangulate ECM targets as each knows the vector to them but not the range, and you would see the missile ranges in display so you would know when to launch. So you say that SU-27S shouldn't have a RWR at all? Are you saying that IRST shouldn't have range information? The sight reticle is trace of the limitation of FC3. It should be fixed to your view like in a KA-50 with similar symbols and only direct your sensors or missile on that direction. It is annoying that it stays "locked on" like a JHMCS on F/A-18C, but ED doesn't make even a simple fix by removing that "lock-on" capability and make it stay fixed in camera.

IMHO each cockpit should be separated bindings group that you can't operate from the another. So example to use the master arm switch in the operator cockpit you need to be in that one, you can't be sitting in the pilot cockpit and just press button. The sight has already a automatic switching when the cyclic is stoved away, and you enter to the sight. So you can have sight controls as in your joystick X and Y axis when looking through sight, and when you pull cyclic out you would be flying with it. Then when you swap to pilot cockpit your joystick X and Y is controlling pilot cyclic.

There is possibility that the stabilization system is not as effective as it should. Because various documentation talks about 0.92 hit probability when pilot is free to turn up to 60 degrees. At the moment you can't really make any maneuvers as sight will collide and be thrown away.

I think that depends from module and the runway. I feel that Yak-52 has tendency to almost do in pieces on take-off. While some others or is like sliding on ice hockey ring. I think that is reason as well why people love their jetseats as it gives them that rumble and shaking.

I think those open up some of the generic parts.

Nitehawk was primary targeting pod in 2006 for hornet. In 2005 the fleet admiral in whatever combat sit front of the congress telling how badly things were. Super Hornets had the ATFLIR, the whole F/A-18C fleet had only two ATFLIR for testing purposes. The USMC F/A-18D Hornets had Litening but C models and Spanish ones had none. It was just two ATFLIR for all C hornets, and rest used Nitehawk. What we should have is the old setup, requiring two pods for operation. And then leave the ATFLIR and LITENING to future 2007-2008 missions. If someone has problem with that, they could stick their mission to dated 2005 and fly with terrible Nitehawk that requires another pod for self designation and isn't allowed to even do that because it is so inaccurate that you can't make out do you target enemy or friendly, and do you even get bomb in that location.

While in VR #1 rule is not to move the head as it cause nausea. But you could move the plane, keep the head stationary for the terrain for a slight lag and then start to follow the plane. That could work. And add proper G forces, blurring edges, losing colors, and then start dimming edges and you can move virtual head alot because you just created blinders that help against nausea.

So we do get A-G mode. I already got worried...

There is still the incorrect behavior for DMT and attack symbology. As in previous @Schmidtfire thread about DMT/TV look: When the TV mode is activated without lock and there is a Target Designation (for waypoint, for slewing first time or re-attack) the TV mode should be in the "open crosshair mode". The DMT would be just floating around the target designation and be used for Visual ID the area, without round stabilization. The pilot task is to press SSS Aft to either switch to DMT/TV mode (if not already, like if designation done in INS mode in IFOV area, DMT/LST mode, Waypoint or TOO etc) or press and release TDC Down to initiate lock-on process. After 180 ms the TV crosshair would jump to strongest contrast (the brightest) that is inside the open crosshair area and lock on it. If there is a contrast lock on target, the boxed crosshair can move to nearby similar contrast as the system is considering it as a moving target. This cause problems where the TV tracker can jump to unwanted bright objects in frame when tracking example moving target. The real manual as well states the DMT logic where after reaching a gimbal limit, the DMT display should be replaced by the compass rose to guide pilot for re-attack and attack mode switch from DMT -> INS . When the pilot turns back toward the target area and target is inside the DMT gimbal, the system should be in INS mode but the DMT/TV would be in Open Crosshair mode pointing at the designated target, waiting the pilot to switch from INS -> DMT/LST -> DMT/TV to re-lock the target if required, as otherwise system is guiding pilot using just INS mode for re-attack.

As long it is technically possible it should be made possible. But it as well need to have properly simulated drawbacks. That is correct. What they should do is to allow the APKWS II rockets to be usable, hit it with the 2016 timestamp for the proper time filter in the Mission Editor and this way you make proper timeline possible as well for those who want to follow it. Those who want to go for strictly for one specific year with real history can build their missions as they can and be repeating them time after time. Those who want realistic capabilities but make a own missions and scenarios could do so as well. Only if technically possible. I don't know about that, so I leave it to those who actually knows is the AIM-7 technically possible be carried and launched in the F-16 we have. Leave the real world politics and religion out of the DCS World, that is mission designers decision to either follow or ignore in the sandbox. Those who want to restrict their missions to real history can do so with all its limitations it brings. Those who are willing to go for creativity can make missions or campaigns like "Museum Relic" and such. If a six fuel tanks is possible in F-16CM, then so be it. Just model properly the drag, weight and all other parts so those who want to use it can enjoy it.

@myHelljumper Any information about fix?

Light reading for bed.... I remember seeing that in the past, didn't leave a happy imagery.

It shouldn't be required be so, but possible be done so if wanted. It should be in control of the AI so that normal players don't need to even think about it in mission editing. Too many things in DCS is behind scripts, waypoints etc. It is time to let go of those requirements for players to get functional and living combat experience from take-off to landing. The scripting is critical part of almost any game, don't take it wrong. But it should never be requirement for basic and advanced features. Example the Super Carrier, it shouldn't require any scripting to have it living and functioning properly. It should be default that you spawn on deck, you have deck filled properly from planes, it is populated by crew and you have all guidance and everything from start to finish by the default. You would even see planes take-off and fly randomly as in RAT etc. So be it example a flight take-off and fly a 50 nm circus and then return. Have the rescue helicopters in station and everything. Then if player does not want those things, they can in editor click them off one by one "no extra planes", "No deck crew", "No random traffic", "No automatic ship positioning" etc.

It is question do you get hit by fragment or not. Standing a 20 meters from a Mk.82 explosion with nose fuze on hard ground doesn't leave much changes that none of the fragments would hit you, and the noise, shock wave and all does their own thing. Standing 800 meters from a Mk.82 explosion will eliminate all the shock waves and heat, but that noise will be severe for such distance. But you can be hit by a fragment if you are unlucky. I think that for sake of simulation, those 800 m fragmentation could be left out from any calculations toward ground units. It could be performed against a air vehicles like helicopters or jets that dropped it etc, as it could be reasonable sometimes get hit by such. by some odd reason. But if we start to talk about distances like 50 meters and 150 meters, then we are in the radius of actually required to calculate effects. We could easily make off most of them if we have three stances for infantry, standing, crouched, and prone. If the soldier is standing, then perform calculation. If the soldier is crouched, you lower the probability and if the soldier is prone, then you don't do anything for damage, but you can distract and disturb, cause shock, fear etc. Then if the soldier is inside a 50 meters and is prone, you start to do some calculations for damage. I have seen IRL enough Mk.82's to go off, that I wouldn't want to be anywhere near those things. Seeing 80 mm mortars effects or 155 mm artillery impacts and then the target area doesn't leave much to guessing that what would happen to 100+ men in the area. Even if you would stay alive dug in the foxhole, you would be so frighten that fighting is likely last thing you are thinking at that moment. Please, no "healing" in the field. We need actual operation instead these game functions. Meaning you need to evacuate the personnel = transport them away. You need to move your troops away, recover the vehicles and if not possible then possibly destroy them etc. It is already enough arcade that we have 3 minute repair and refueling in the base for aircraft and infinite amount of planes, fuel, weapons etc. It would be far nicer to have the proper turn-around times for fighters, and then just have few of them on roadbases etc. So you need to then jump to another if you want to take-off from there - or wait the whole time. In SP it is possible to speed up the time, but in multiplayer it means you are out of luck. Having limited amount of planes in the airbase means that you do not want to crash or destroy them. As you are left with none. The ground commanders should be there to protect their soldiers and vehicles, so they don't get damaged and injured - or worse, killed and destroyed. If those tasks would in RTS mode require micro management and get the medical rescue helicopter and recover vehicles etc for proper places, then be it. You learn to avoid them getting damaged. Rockets would alone become more effective when you could stress the enemy, cause them moral pressure, weaken their will and cause fear etc. Suppress them from fighting. As then you could utilize them far more as should when you don't need to kill targets. Coordinated attack with the ground forces would help to capture areas, get enemy withdraw and move them away is as effective method as trying to kill them. Now when every AI is like complete idiot that doesn't know what "death" means, they are causing all weapons too to become ineffective.

Unless you have a gprs connection and upload 4096px 48 bit texture files all over, then you are problem free from that. Seriously, the programmers has already been doing these things for decades. The problem has not been that where you are located as person, or the internet connection (as long you have one) but two major parts. 1) You can't just turn around and ask from someone near you that what was what and where etc. You can't turn to look other monitor and help to solve some problem etc. 2) If you don't use a proper distributed version control system, then you are in trouble. Programmers has been in advantage before writers, who has been in problems when writing together some scripts or plays. On computer era it is already basic thing to use a comparison features in editors to find the differences. But that is common thing among normal users who just don't know all the tools there has been for decades. If one would add today a IRC (discord) or if internet connection supports a group video with webcams, then it would be closest to what one can have on office, except you can mute all and be in silence if so wanted. This is as well reason why Microsoft is so heavily pushing the Teams in Windows 11. That you can just quickly open a video connection to co-worker and have the video call. Apple has been on this for over decade with their Facetime but majority of people have personal problems to be on video calls. Even when Nokia had them possible at the 90's, people didn't want to use them. Since the 70's the video calls were presented to be possible made from everywhere, first at the board level and then with more and more company workers and eventually even from a phonebooth in street corner. That everywhere would be done with video calls. Even when every laptop sold comes with webcam, it is one of the least used features in whole device. So welcome just the VoIP. Have a nice bluetooth headset for one ear and just call someone and talk about it, or if not time sensitive then leave a email. I remember how in 90's we had all computers connected so that you could just see is the user online and drop a message to them directly. And if the person was not online, message was delivered when user logged in. One of the major problems with the technology adaptation has been this idiotic "cloud" marketing speech. There is a Intranet and there is Internet. You can connect multiple Intranets through Internet and everyone has access like in same LAN. The whole world has been slowed down by Microsoft and Apple, and excellent ideas were killed because few didn't have vision... But this all is off-topic, as this is not a wishlist thread but more of a chit-chat....