v81

So was looking for assistance with some issues on the GitHUB and noticed that aside from modules no real action has taken place for almost 3 years. There are pull requests (one of which would likely solve one of my issues) going back ~ 3 years and unanswered. Same for Issues, people asking for help without answer. DCS BIOS was pretty cool, but is there something that does the same thing and is active? Far as i know it's all there was, kinda sad to loose it. Cheers.

The number of NS430 modules and combinations have gotten out of control. The Modules page looks ridiculous at the moment with the front page alone containing 7 variations of the NS430, including 4 different packages for the C-101 which is essentially 1 aircraft... FOUR! NS430 main + C-101EB NS430 + C101CC NS430 C-101EB NS430 + C101CC NS430 C-101EB NS430 C-101CC NS430 This is getting a bit out of hand i think, and it frankly made me laugh at the store page. ED and the 430 dev might want to come up with a better way of doing this. It really should just be a module on it's own at a fuller price and then be allowed to be integrated into any pit. Similar to what X-Plane does, though in that case it's a base part of X-Plane itself. I suggest a few DCS staffers stand back and take a look at it. It gives the appearance of frivolity to the ED/DCS store.

Just started investing a bit of time into DCS BIOS, it's a pretty handy bit of kit. I have a few questions, i'll start with the short ones. 1) Re hardware, is it strictly the basic arduinos that are supported? For example can i use a Due (ARM Cortex-M3), or an STM32 board configured into the Arduino IDE? 2) What speed does DCS BIOS communicate with the Arduino? I see 250Kbps mentioned, correct? 3) Is there a way to get 2 simple strings, 1 ea for the entire of the first and second line of the Ka-50 PVI-800? If not is there a way to make this happen in the Arduino? I have to send the text to a serial connected display as a string, works great for the A-10c CDU, would love to do the same with the Ka-50. 4) Is there anything definitive coming from DCS BIOS to the Arduino that specifies the current cockpit that i could use to swap pages on my Arduino display? eg: If F/A-18c then goto page 4 I'm struggling a bit, but making progress, any help appreciated.

Unfortunately my extra displays aren't running of an Nvidia card. As far as i know display exports have been broken in regards to contrast, brightness and saturation since DCS 1.5 Has this been the experience of others? I've seen it mentioned a few places. Would be good if it could be fixed at the source.

Are we there yet ?

Watched a Youtube walk around of a retired / demo A-10C. Pilot mentioned it had an OBOGS system installed where the LOX used to go. Clip here if anyone interested, one of the better A-10 walk arounds i've seen. ~ 11m:40s mark Probably not a huge deal weather we get it or not. Just curious to know if it's accurate to the new A-10C module, and and if so i'd hope it's not difficult to implement it. I assume there isn't a lot of logic in the oxygen system anyway.

As per the picture above i had zero data flow via torrent except to/from ED servers. The updater was trying to connect to other users, but connections were never established. Despite this the client was reporting being connected to peers. I suggest others try cPorts to get a clear understanding of the issue. https://www.nirsoft.net/utils/cports.html What you're looking for is an established connection and more than a handful of bytes from a server other than an ED/DCS server. You will notice that there is not a single byte sent or received from connections other than the ED/DCS ones. Thus it would appear that my client is getting a list of peers, but is unable to establish a connection. If there are successful connections it would appear that someone might not be behind a NAT router, and/or the client uses uPNP, and/or the user has forwarded a port. If anyone finds uPNP in their router settings it would be wise to turn it off. That said though be prepared to open/forward ports manually if you're running servers etc..

It always seems that using the Torrent method of downloading is incredibly slow and i had some suspicions as to why. This evening i looked into to and can't say I'm surprised. For a connection to work there either needs to be an open port at one end, or something to mediate the connection. It seems the DCS_updater has no such features. At best it might support uPNP, but for security reasons this is almost extinct. So if no ports are open how do ED propose to make torrents work? Using cPorts i captured the screen below, and can see attempts made continuously by others clients, but not a single successful connection, not a single byte of data flow. Obviously i could open a port, but what really needs to happen is to have a vast audience do the same before torrents will work. Ultimately time and time again canceling and using HTTP is about 10 - 12x faster for me (though with extra data in effect only 6-8x faster). I'm at a loss as to why it is this way? Torrents are great.... when implemented and configured correctly, otherwise they're not.

Good info and much appreciated. If you have no interest in whats upcoming then fine, don't participate in the thread. Meanwhile let others discuss if they'd like.

Sadly I'm struggling with 'Deployment' Trees galore when the recon pictures (from the pre updated caucuses i assume) show no trees. Additionally trees are collide-able now, and wingman AI is rubbish, both blind and unable to engage without getting shot down himself. Similar issues in many other campaigns, this drives me crazy, but given the dynamic and rolling nature of DCS (which is is good for a few reasons) it would be great to have a crystal clear FAQ for every module, every map and every mission/campaign so that we don't have to find out the had way that something was broken 3 years ago and never fixed. Finding out the hard way infuriates me, not the fact it is broken. I'd be a lot less annoyed if i could find out that this campaign is broken by the map update and in the queue to be fixed and thus go onto a working campaign than struggle through mission by mission only to find an impassable mission that bricks it for me.

I'm lost in all this speculation and opinion. The new Ka-50 needs something significant to differentiate it from the existing one. If there are no significant change of systems it's going to be a hard sell. ED are rubbish at sharing information, if they were smart they would have an FAQ page dedicated to modules in development that definitively answer questions from a reliable source. I've seen so many posts saying a Ka-50 doesn't even need an RWR. I simply don't understand this. It can benefit from both a radar warning and laser warning. Just about everything uses either laser or radar for either or a combination of... 1) search 2) tracking 3) guidance Even if the weapon itself is free flying (23mm Shilka, 30mm Tunguska rounds) or IR/Radar guided (Strela/Tunguska) Why would you not want to know if there was a radar searching or tracking? I don't know much about the President-S but if what we get lacks any of the above mentioned useful systems then what good is it? Can anyone tell my why i wouldn't want any warning that a Strela or Shilka has it's head up and is looking for targets?

As a person interested in radio and radio comms I'll give some info, though possibly not a definitive answer... 1st a matter of nomenclature... Waves (Short Wave, Medium Wave, Long Wave) are mostly analogous to Frequency (LowF, MedF, HighF, VeryHhighF, UltraHF, SuperHF). Medium Frequency is 300KHz to 3MHz HF is 3MHz - 30MHz, VHF 30MHz-300MHz, UHF 300MHz - 3GHz. There are sometimes other defined ranges, but these are the most common. As for US Military UHF starting at 2xx MHz it's technically VHF, but as it crosses into the UHF range, and to save confusion vs VHF airband we just call it UHF. Higher a frequency, shorter the wavelength. So Short wave is kind of same as saying that the frequency is high. The term Shortwave most often used to refer to long distance broadcast radio stations & frequencies, typically in the range of 3MHz to 60MHz. Now, onto the Shark, the R-828 radio is capable of TX/RX from 20MHz to 60MHz (channels programmed in the mission editor) thus this could be considered short wave, but it is said in the manual that is it the VHF-2 radio. Weather the designation of VHF-2 is correct or not, I'm not sure, possibility exists there might be an error based on the following... 1) 20-60MHz is pretty much short wave 2) The Ka-50 is a modern (relative to the Mig15 for example) platform, and modern machines usually favor higher frequencies. That said, some HF is reserved for it's good long distance / non line of sight properties for JTAC/FAC type comms or other ground<->air stuff (you see the folded up HF antennas on these guys backpacks). Remember, this is all theory based on my civil understanding of radio comms and the operating characteristics of different modes and frequencies. It's all feasible, but there is still a fair chance they have done it different and have a second SW (in addition to the VHF-2 that partially covers the top end of HF and bottom end of VHF wich could legitimately be called a SW unit and given the wrong position on the switch????). If you find out for absolute sure from a rock solid source I'd love to know the answer!

If the launchers were canted in just half a degree or something it sounds like it would solve all problems. I'm sure ED do the best they can, but some things will not be accurate due to lack of information or due to mistakes. I suspect that in the real life scheme of things the turning one way or another makes no measurable difference. But here is the most important point. The manual says this turn is needed to help the missile acquire the beam between its rear sensors. The turn suggested in DCS would seem to be an inefficient way of achieving this if the missile makes an S turn at launch regardless. Additionally you'd be shooting the missile across the beam more so than nearing parallel to the beam. So by the book it doesn't stack up. Regarding info in the Russian forum, any links would be appreciated just to get started, I'll use a translator from there.

In roughly a similar ballpark i might pose a question... If i recall correctly BS1 had the ability to run the generators in a 'high idle' throttle setting. But this does not seem to be the case in BS2. The way i recall it (and this is real on some aircraft for ground work / conserving fuel) the throttle had the following positions... 1 - Idle 2 - High Idle (generators start to supply power at this point) 3 - Governor (still generating power) 4 - Max (in case of engine or gov failure) Anyone else remember it being like this?

I was able to complete the mission, but the real issue is that the briefing says that AWACS will be there, and it's not. It's a case of the end user being told X, but having Y happen instead. You have to picture this from the perspective of a person that did not create the mission, whom are playing it for the first time and taking the information in the briefing to be mostly accurate. The evidence from at least 2 forum threads and multiple users (and even more viewers who had to search for this but have not left a message) here suggests that something is not right. So what you really need to do is decide if the mission in it's current state is working as intended or not, and adjust accordingly. The bigger concern i have and this is especially frustrating in the tutorials is that no one seems to be doing quality control, or if they are they have then they are aware that the briefing says one thing but a different thing happens and they don't care. ====== This, at least as best i recall was my thoughts during the mission the first 6 or so attempts. When i took off i headed to the WP as required waiting to hear a BRA call from AWACS. When i heard noting i tried to call AWACS but it was not in the radio menu. The RWR was showing that it was scanning, F10 map revealed it was still on the ground. Switched on my radar and looked inland expecting the drone to be coming from there, pretty keen to find it before it crosses the point that fails the mission. Scanned left, center right, up and down... No joy. Wondered further along the coast and a pair of F-5E's spawned, i though this was supposed to be a surprise. Always seemed to get one of them but the other would get me. Rinse and repeat. Overall i tried about 10 times before searching it, the last 4-6 times i tried different things. The spoiler is that after looking at the TacView it seems the drone is orbiting Sukhumi at 2200M the whole time, right from mission start. Thing is i wasn't always looking at Sukhumi, as per the briefing if it was over Sukhumi then the mission was lost. Thus naturally i was thinking it was elsewhere because the mission was still OK. The other issue is the difference in altitude vs the players altitude from the set route. Ultimately with no AWACS and taking the briefing to be accurate i was orbiting Sukhumi at 3300M scanning all around. Ironicaly it surns out i was orbiting directly above the drone the whole time looking for something coming to Sukhumi, when it was already then underneath me the whole time. The issue now is that with it immediately below me my radar never picked it up. In finishing... So i hope that clears up how it is perceived from an end user. If the briefing is to say AWACS will assist with targeting then maybe AWACS should already be airborne at the beginning of the mission. If the mission is to say the drone needs to be downed before reaching Sukhumi then the drone should not START at Sukhumi. If the drone needs to start at Sukhumi then the briefing needs to be adjusted to say something like 'It is overhead Sukhumi now, destroy it before it can gather any useful intelligence.

So just shy of 5 years and this issue still exists. Lovely. Instructions for others that have trouble with this...

Trying to remember how to work the Mirage and got stuck here. Additionally i recall that some of the recent pit update included some work on the radios. Could be possible this broke the training mission?

HI, Looking to preset the ADF on the UH1 to 477KHz at mission start. Whilst i was at it i was wondering if it were possible to configure voice / nav radios (ILS, VOR, TACAN, ADF etc...) to particular settings in the editor? Cheers.

Much appreciated, i remember when i first encountered the issue i was perplexed. You'll save everyone from scratching their heads now. Cheers.

I've thought about this on an off for several years. I've been a keen user of the Ka-50 even before DCS world. Something that has always struck me as strange is the need to turn the helo a little during Vikhr launch. On the surface it seems reasonable as it's a beam riding missile. But dig a little deeper and there are 2 significant issues. First is that turning the nose left to line up a launch tube on the right outer has the seemingly adverse effect of the source of the laser moving to the left, and increasing the angle between the laser and missile. It would just about seem more intuitive if the tube were angled inward slightly toward the nose and the helo turn the launching tube away from the target slightly so as the missile can acquire and ride the beam with less incidence. However going further is the fact the Shark can launch a missile from each side in salvo mode and both have no issue capturing and riding the beam. It begs the question, what source is the information with regards to this? Do DCS have an accurate, un classified source or is it one of those things implemented as a best guess (which is totally fine by the way, sometimes it has to be)? In case the above is unclear I've had a doodle in paint, sorry, I'm no artist.:doh:

Possible bug. Seems to be an issue with massive jerkyness / FPS when looking at left and right consoles with Track IR (eg, Aircon on right & breakers on left). Anyone else seeing this?

Confirmed still an issue. So... a few more months and this issue will be 2 years old.

Quick question, this is my layout. Primary is the left / #2, and this is the monitor DCS runs on. 1) Is it going to be an issue that monitor #1 is to the right of the main? 2) Is there any issue with the righ hand monitor being a dissimilar resolution / taller than the main? Due to a significant physical space limitation i can't run the right hand monitor in landscape :(

My feedback. It's great. Cost under AUD $4.00 to unlock premium which is a fair price. Would be great to get all of the extras for a single fixed price. Would winding the price up to $4 - $6 USD work for you guys? Would take away the 'micro transaction' feel of it too. I appreciate the simplicity of it. For others that have not used it, it is a simple drag and drop interface creator that passes keystrokes to your PC. Great for things you want ready access to but have run out of bindings for. The discord server wanted to validate my mobile number. That was a bit weird... is that something just for your server or a new Discord anti spam feature? Anyway, i can see I'll be getting some good use out of this and it's well worth the small amount to get the larger panels. I'll add that these guys have an SPO-15 RWR app as well. Have installed but not tried it yet, will report back. I have read the info that some servers limit what data can be exported to this will be something to be aware of.

Just curious, how will the new Blackshark and new systems be deployed? For the facelift and fixes will it... a) Just become part of the existing BS2 module b) Be a new module free to existing BS2 owners c) Be a part of the BS3 module with the new toys 'disabled'? For the new stuff will it be... a) An addon to the BS2 module (Like the GNS430 adds to the other aircraft)? b) Be it's own new independent module Not a loaded question, just asking.