Fri13

Short Answer: Yes. Long Answer: No, You shouldn't! Every single official information from any official first or third party should have presence in this Official DCS World Forum. They can as well be in all other places, but this should be #1 place. It would be even easy to post a message here and then link it to those other channels, this way everyone is directed to one place for news, information, statements etc.

That is what I would like to see, it would change a lot about the multiplayer how people fly, but only on servers that would activate a such "Hard Core" system mode (so all those who want to lose a plane due flameout, can keep doing so on servers that doesn't have such mode enabled). Of course many is always against the whole idea because their fun would be taken away, if they would need to fly to action from 200 M distance each time they die, they would just start to feel bad about the mission, and not because their habits to fly. The sad thing in "Air Quake" servers is that they are heavily DM oriented, instead at least TDM or more preferable CTF where teamwork matters far more than individual performance.

In the Windows Weekly (Twitch podcast) they mentioned that TPM 2.0 is required for Windows 11. That latest standard is from 2015, so very many PC will be out of Windows 11 update program, if it is so required, but any newer PC should be fine as long Windows 8 was running on it. Basically if your PC runs Windows 10, then it will run Windows 11, as since 2016 Microsoft has required TPM 2.0 from all new PC's.

I hope that new ED audio rework and AI and all, includes the proper separated AI for GCI. One that is actually many AI. Where you would have one AI to overwatch big picture, strategy. And then individual AI's for each flight/group. Something that is not to be requested what is picture, but one that actively guides you, even in dog fight it would be constantly talking to you for enemy position around you, it energy status and maneuvers. So that you would know without asking what to do. The AI should be "smart enough" to make tactics that helps to trap enemy by positioning own flight members to advantageous positions. So the GCI would be talking a chess to redair, while blue AWACS would be telling threat vector, range etc usual as now. This AI should then be used in AI flight/element leader tasking when player is a wingman. It would command player to fly wanted manner, take the control of tactics and engagements etc. In dogfight/BVR you would be hearing AI talking to you as what to do etc. It would be nice to be a wingman and hear one GCI telling air is clear and then another AI to command you to cover him as he is going to attack the ground target. The MiG-/Su- fighters lose so much because we don't have the proper TTS engine, no way to have dynamic AI for leading the flight etc. But when currently Su-27S doesn't even have proper datalink capability for multiplayer, what can be expected? We need proper flight group building in multiplayer, where they are connected, they get to input IFF codes to their systems, have flight plan drawn on map, radio frequencies set, and then datalinks based to proper groups.

So maneuverability and speed were limited, but it still was capable to perform the challenges it was required. That can be seen in couple ways, if not from the aerodynamical point where it managed to use its maneuver and speed to complete its challenges, or even with some electronic point like radar range, targeting system capabilities etc etc where it could easily find threats before becoming a prey to them etc. "on Top" doesn't yet say much. If there is 100 different participants and you belong to top 10, then you are in "always on top", but it doesn't make you best. If you have 10 participants and you reach always as 1-3 places, then it is still "always on top". If you are 80% of the time #1 but 20% of times just 2nd or 3rd, it still counts "always on top". If you are just only participant, then you are automatically on top, even if you are always the #1. Only thing that it is saying is that EF was not underdog, it didn't perform badly or was in severe problems. Again it depends that what were the tests and challenges. But we can't draw a conclusion that EF was better in BVR, or in WVR or anything. Just that in the non-disclosed challenges the EF was capable (regardless its artificial performance limitations) to win in the exercises. It doesn't mean that it is EF vs F-15E situation. It can be that they were "X vs Time" or "X vs mission goals". Unless every parameter in each challenge is known, those are not saying anything meaningful. Example simulate a 10 air targets as bombers that you need to shoot down. If A can carry 10 BVR missiles and B can carry 6 BVR missiles, then situation is bad for the B. If it is 2 fighters vs 10 bombers, then it is 20 missiles vs 12 missiles and there is much better change again that A wins because they can have 50% hit change when others need to basically hit on each missile. It would then be possible write "EF was always on top in air combat" in such BVR simulated exercise. This all unless I have missed something that it has been specifically stated that it has been 2x EF vs 2x F-15E starting at 50 nmi and simulate the combat shots, and then same for the WVR starting at the merge etc. But unless all those are specified and known, knowing the results doesn't tell anything about the competition why something was "better than other".

I don't get that That I could find as logical reason that "let's make a safety to the safety system" that some engineers might have for some reason. Considering that you anyways wouldn't be designating targets for JDAM and such using targeting pod but using a intelligence reports before flight, that you are sitting in the cockpit entering those things or you have them in the data cartridge for the weapons automatically set already in the mission planning. So you are not suppose to be there entering those things in first place, why it can be more complex thing. This now requires clarification from multiple sources first that what is the real thing. As ED "Correct As Is" can't be correct when logic doesn't exist.

Take that in consideration.

It said that it was among top in the whole exercise as overall performer. That can include all kind sorties, like long range strikes with attacking through enemy fighters patrol. And even if you would win the air combat, but if you run out of fuel or you need to engage them because you don't have endurance to go around, you don't win the task. It doesn't even say is it a F-15E vs EF. It can be very well that you have same tasks and it is checked who can perform it better against similar scenario. If you perform better in that, you win the another. So even in such scenarios EF can have a challenge as F-15E has speed and endurance with dedicated ground attack capabilities that can put EF to work harder. Or if it is a BVR combat with example 2 vs 4 scenario that how can systems handle targeting and such. Exactly. We can assume things but when you don't know tests or competition etc it is difficult to say anything.

The web page that rotates here is as well more about Mi-24D and V that has a rotating gun for ambushes and missiles with different launchers that tilts (2° upward for in-flight launches) and is turn inward.

It doesn't say either that EF beat others in combat, notice how example MiG-29 downside is given it endurance and not maneuverability, speed, BVR etc. So "short legs" that dramatically can change how badly you perform in combat when you can't reach areas or can't engage to long timed combat operations. Similar way others had their downsides. And this put EF to top because its overall performance and capabilities in various missions.

That is good hypothesis, but considering that one would need to operate very close to equator and meridian to have error for coordinates in release range so that you would get release authority, for coordinates that you just inputted. Like could someone enter anyways a such coordinates that only a E to W or N to S error would allow them to release the weapon? Shouldn't that happen around the Null Island itself by range of the weapon range for both to be high risk?

I think they utilize very small forward slip for couple reasons: 1) You can have better visual that where you are landing as you have meter or two forward to roll. 2) Main thing that you avoid possible CoG problems when you utilize your wheels to roll forward so you don't accidentally cause hazardous situation where you would have front wheel sideways or rear wheel touching first and it becomes pivot point to whole helicopter. In the first one you can see that pilot could very well just land after short perfect stop on landing, but decides to perform slight dip forward to make touchdown with that small forward motion. I have been doing that same thing since KA-50 as it just makes everything so much easier when you have it, as you have for some reason a more comfortable control to whole situation. When going for a perfect hover and then come down, there is major possibility that slight error happens.

Oddity that you need to twice input that what are your coordinates. Interesting to see what ED replies as "correct as is" justification.

For me it says "in steering process", that I took as when pilot is steering helicopter.

It takes time to learn how to use them. Easy way is to use active pause, fly in good optimal case (sideslip, speed etc) and them check how does grenades fly. Adjust sight and take a try to hit something. Them repeat, actice pause for position where wanted to hit something and adjust sight where they land etc. After while you get a touch to their functionality and they became easier to use. They demand patience, as they fall so slowly. And learning their range takes time. But once you are good with them, they become very fun. And yes, I wonder the high angle as well. As to me the barrel looks to point straight forward, and that those would be more of a "high altitude bombing" than "long range smashing".

This is amazing news... I hope it will be as well developed for desktop users as for VR users (please, primarily for VR). As so simple thing as having mouse cursor moved with it when it is placed front of the throttle or display. And I would like to know in future that is it possible be used when LM mounted on VR HMD with slight downward angle (to maximize utilization of low angle buttons and switches).

Are you sure? I would take the stabilization effectiveness, but it is always extra to operator aiming skills The page talks about how at long range you can accidentally put missile on ground by doing too fast aiming down, and missile reacts to it quickly.

So missile guidance signal is first given in 18° after launch to capture it, and then switched to 3°. Compared to optics given 22/7° FOV it is required to have target well inside it. The sight gimbal limits are +/- 60° in azimuth and +15/-20° in vertical. And then the key information: Maximal angular velocity is 2.5° in a second, and control speed 20° in a second horizontally and 10° in vertical. So operator can scan whole 120° horizontal view in 6 seconds, and vertical in 3.5 seconds. This means that we have 1:2 ratio for the sight movement. Has anyone noticed such? Maybe it needs to be added with the controller axis saturation so Y is 100% and X is 50% And angular velocity of 2.5°/s should be the stabilization capability. That is not much for Petrovich that waves controllers far faster than that. But considering it, 50 degree turn by pilot should then be performed at over 20 seconds to have stabilization horizontally... The missile has already impacted at 5000 meters in that time. 2.5°/s rate is very tiny. I am custom to T-72 stabilization as it was best of its kind until Leopard 2 was taken in service (1972 vs 1979) and it had little better stabilization for the normal action (but amazing overall, as can be seen in various videos of champagne glass on its cannon). The T-72 gun is capable for 6 degrees per second rate, that is more than enough for defensive and offensive combat speeds and operations. So that is 2.4x better than Mi-24 has, that is floating in air and under fast sudden moves for maneuvers. 2.5°/s sounds low, but it should be enough for Mi-24 to maintain stable sight in normal combat flight.

Exactly the problem. I would like to have this excellent work from flappiefh as map boards If I recall correctly, he has drawn the lakes and rivers by hand, checked the bridges and roads and all. It might not be realistic printed map, but it is far more usable than US map as now. You would at least have accurate representation of towns,roads, hills, lakes, rivers and like. Purpose of the map is to be able position yourself to the surroundings with visual observation, and current map doesn't offer that: Accurate map for DCS 2.5 Caucasus theatre - GeoTIFF (digitalcombatsimulator.com)

Wasn't it suppose to happen only when the radar is very close to you (active missile) that it lits up all the antennas at once, but before that you get the direction to radars? The MiG-21Bis had it incorrect by always showing all lights when ever you were locked, making it unusable to know from what direction.

That is then same as with F-15C that doesn't have a FBW either, but "G for stick amount of movement".

Happened on me. Impossible get track for any bug report as track is in few seconds unusable.

I recall that I read from russian forum that the FF effects or something is inverted, so there is a bug for something. Does anyone know better? I need to try that. I have the springless and FF-less joystick, I get most stable control/flight without trimmer. Just place the joystick where wanted and it flies so. It can't be hold for minutes without AP as slightly off control input and you will eventually crash. But, that is where AP would be helping, to maintain the altitude, heading etc automatically. Why I don't like to use trimmer is that if each axis in joystick is 0-100%, and 50% is then the center. If I move the joystick let's say 10% to left, so it is in 40% position. And I press trimmer. The control indicator shows that the diamond jumps further left from the 40% position. Without moving joystick at all I press trim button again, it jumps again further to the left. As many times I press the trim button, it keeps jumping to the left. Of course I don't need to do it than once or twice and helicopter flips around because it is control input is like at 20%. The pitch is worst, move 2-3% backward (to 52-53%), and press trimmer, it might jump 15% backwards (to 65%) and press again without moving joystick and it can be with 100% full deflection. It doesn't matter is the trim button hold and released, or is it pressed, it will go haywire. This leads to situations where I might be on the level flight for landing using only "press, move and release" method through the whole flight, and I double press trimmer to reset the trimmer, and everything goes crazy because suddenly helicopter reacts to new position of the joystick. This, again shouldn't happen because I do not have centering joystick. The control indicator should always show exactly where my joystick position is relative to its axis. But that is not the case. If I use trimmer, my control indicator starts quickly to show that my diamond is in the center (50% in both) for all various flight conditions. Even if my joystick physically is totally elsewhere positioned. So only way to really fly is not to use trimmer at all.