[Problem with MSL LAUNCH audio]

Very often I see MSL LAUNCH flash on the HUD but no warning audio is played.

Sometimes it happens with MAWS Missile Alert too, but the MSL LAUNCH audio it’s down to 50/50 if it will play.

My last few tracks are only big multiplayer missions, but if needed I’ll try to record something shorter.

Has anyone else noticed this issue?

 

 

[More accurate Apparat 27 - AJS37 RWR mod]

Thanks for your reply @MYSE1234.  Sounds great! I have not flown AJS37 in a while. And only vanilla version, no mods.
Got another question, I don't know if you can answer, but out of curiosity:

In real life was Apparat-27 ever configured to prioritize (or ignore) certain radars?

In DCS if I fly in a busy combat zone. Apparat-27 is playing tunes  Sounds like a tetris game from all the different radar sweeps.
Just curious if it really was like that IRL. Or maybe it was less of an issue considering primary use of the 37 system.

[More accurate Apparat 27 - AJS37 RWR mod]

Congrats on joining the Heatblur team! @MYSE1234

Maybe Im wrong here. but shouldn't Apparat-27 have a uniform sound for lock and launch (and for other signals above 5kHz)? 

According to this page https://www.aef.se/Avionik/Notiser/Apparat-27.htm 

"Audio information was also presented in the driver's earphones at the same frequency as the recorded radar station's PRF if this was lower than 5 kHz. At higher PRF than 5 kHz, or when the signal was of CW type from Kapsel KB, a synthetic ambulance tone was given."

Much interesting audio in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaNt9_sQdGI&ab_channel=MIP At 5:45 it sounds like the synthetic ambulance tone also described for Apparat-73 on JA37 Viggen (in reality, a modified Apparat-27)

My theory is that with a CW lock or launch Apparat-27 is not trying to mimic any type of frequency or modulation. It's a totally synthetic audio cue, like on the Hornet. Much easier for the pilot to distinguish under pressure. The frequency/modulation makes more sense trying to distinguish what might be looking at you but not for CW. Again, I might be wrong, but seems to make more sense?
 

[Realistic Pipper Option No Effect]

Here is a more detailed explanation. Still not fixed December 2023.
@Hiromachi or @-Rudel- Can you please PLEASE look into this? Our special settings for the MiG-21bis is still being overridden! Multiplayer is the worst because
"unrealistic" behaviour is set as default. 

[Firing aim7m and aim 54c]

The really big problem is jamming targets below 10000 feet. We’re denied BVR shots until we’re within the ”black hole”  Phoenix envelope. At closer ranges the AIM-54 burn time is nice, but it is like a slow moving truck… The drag when launched at lower altitudes is massive. Maybe Im wrong, but at least in DCS, the Tomcat is very situational. You can get BVR kills against unsuspecting fighters flying 30k with ECM off. But in most situations you need to push into the merge just hoping you have better SA than the other guy. At least that’s my experience.

[Heatblur... Please Consider Making A Proper F15C]

On 11/17/2023 at 11:03 AM, Dragon1-1 said:

Presumably because ED didn't know about it, because it's an obscure bit of info and FC3 aircraft aren't that in-depth.

Im sure ED knows about it. There is a quick lua edit that re-enables the A-G mode and bomb fall line.

My guess is that ED at some point started working on F15C Air-Ground for FC3 but decided to stop that development and disable that functionality.

”Not a pound for air to ground”

 

 

[Feedback Thread AJS-37 Viggen Patch November 2023]

53 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

  ... in fact, for me the fact that a Viggen was actually developed for DCS is nothing short of a miracle, and I truly hope that Heatblur got a reasonably good return for their investment 

Fun fact. Viggen was developed for several years as a closed mod by a group in a Swedish community before being absorbed into Heatblur. The project was not started with commercial viability in mind, but they always aimed for the quality of an official module. Another fun fact was that they also worked on a Swedish map to go along with the Viggen. But the idea was scrapped for unknown reasons.
Kola map will be a nice addition

[DCS: Syria update 2023]

Awesome news! While you’re at it.. Would it be possible to tweak colors of the textures? They are really bland, to the point I cannot even spot runways properly.

thanks

[Pilot dependency on the WSO]

8 hours ago, WinterH said:

Also, for Mavericks, AFAIK both pilot and WSO can slew and lock mavericks' seeker so less dependency there.

Is that also true for AGM-62 Walleye (my favourite) and GBU-8? Would be nice to be able to use them as a Pilot. 

[Is the Phantom a dogfighter?]

I read somewhere that the key to win a fight in the F-4 is to fight in the vertical with hard turns at both ends.

It will be fun, but Im expecting it to be kind of a dog. Maybe close to the Mirage F1? Not great, not terrible. But avoid slow fights at all costs.

[Will Jester II be a grown up ?]

A simple solution to add more flavour and variation to Jester 2.0 would be a VOICE PITCH SLIDER in the new Character Customization interface.

Sort of how they did it with the first Operation Flashpoint. Giving us opportunity of small variations without taking away from the original voice acting and the need to re-record a massive sound library.

Nothing against original Jester, but after all these years hearing exactly the same voice gets a bit repetitive and not very exciting.

[Final release date prediction]

DCS: F-14
Trailer Pre-Order for F-14 - 7th October 2018
Release: 15th March 2019
Announced as "Coming this winter!"

I like to stay optimistic, but when Heatblur writes winter 2023/2024
my guess it is not coming for Christmas 
 

[Please do not do this]

It should be optional and maybe tweaked a bit. The headless solution with pilot model is not looking great either.

Ideally it should position position upper arm and shoulders in view without blocking visibility with a 3rd person helmet view. 

[[FIXED] JF17 p2p datalink not working]

Obviously this is somehow connected to ED's big datalink update on A10C, AH64D F16C and F18C. Very strange considering how much testing was done on 2.9.
It's like no one bother to check on the the JF-17 module before release. Hopefully there will be a fix soon. 

[FAQ and Updates]

I was about to purchase this map, good to see such transparency from the users. No updates for 2.9 does not sound good... EA products need to have some kind of momentum.
Maybe I revisit at a later date.

[FC3 aircraft have blurry HUDs with DLSS/DLAA ON // DCS 2.9 Update]

I would add that it seems like the culprit is how FC3 HUD’s are implemented and rendered in DCS. Just like they all got very dim the last time we had a major graphics update.

We did a 3 player flight last night and all FC3 aircraft demonstrated the same issues for us. DLSS on and to Quality.

Ghosting really messes with the HUD (on all FC3 modules)

*In level flight the vertical lines in HUD pulsates and jitter.

*In a hard bank, the HUD numbers starts to mix into eachother. Very evident on Su-25T altitude readout.

*This only affects the HUD. Looking at F-15C. Grid on radar scope is perfectly fine under same conditions.

[Why hasn't a bug in FM been fixed for more than 2 years?]

Look at this this way. How fun does it sound to upkeep an 9 year old module? Remember they do not make their living out of this, it needs to be fresh and fun.
Unless you get it very right within the first few years, there is a possibility of the module be left hanging "as is". Their minds at the moment are on the Corsair.

Over the years there was a substantial changes back and forth to the FM.  So that's an area Magnitude 3 probably wants to thread lightly. Another factor is the lack of coders/time. And third, I talked to a source close to the original dev team a few years back. I was told that there are some very real limitations on what can be fixed without ripping everything out and start over. The MiG-21bis started as a mod and the foundation was as good as they could do it back then.

There has been talks of improvements and cockpit overhauls. But at the moment It's hard to tell if Magnitude 3 team will find the spark that will make work on the MiG-21bis fun again. To prioritize it's development over upcoming fresh projects. Anyways, that's my subjective opinion.  

[JF-17 6x SD-10?]

+1 SD-10 (or LD-10) for belly - would be really cool!  

[ACM Cover Function]

9 hours ago, draconus said:

We can guess the engineers concluded around 10nm as optimal range for a Phoenix to start actively search for and lock on a fighter sized target.

I disagree (from a DCS standpoint). I often fly multiplayer PvP and 10nm is anything but optimal given how good the RWR gear is in the sim and how easy it is to trash missiles.  
You want to hit something BVR, AIM-54A with TGT size set to small (6nm) is the way to go.  A late warning totally offsets the weaker A seeker performance.
I was a big believer in the 54C, but it's like a night and day difference in pk as far as BVR is concerned. Medium to short range the 54C has the upper hand, but not BVR.

But back to main subject. I think people make it more difficult than it has to be. The ACM cover is there for a reason, it's meant to be used for ACM.
To quickly assist the pilot and make sure nothing is forgotten when the pucker factor is over 9000. Also the LTE advantage it provides is quite handy.

 

[Cold War MANPADS]

SA-7 is so prolific it can't be ignored. It's was pretty much present in every conflict during the Cold War and is still present today.

With all the Cold War and helicopter modules coming, we need a "SAM with a low pk". The SA-7. A modern SA-18 is more or less a sniper unit in DCS, head on. Instant kill
I want to be able to create missions that are exciting. Seeing a sneaky MANPAD come whizzeling by without bringing down me or my buddies every single time. It will fit a large range of missions, from Cold War to Modern Day insurgents.  An interim solution might be for ED to reuse current 3D assets and just input the SA-7 data. Make it bad, make it fun.

[ACM Cover Function]

Aside from the "cool factor" of flipping the cover, it has some practical use. Plus you can use ACM jettison if needed. It's a surefire way to know you are
ready for the merge.

ACM cover does the following:

• Engages High Gun rate

• Engages Missile Prep

• Engages SW Cool

• Shortens the time to fire Phoenix and Aim7 missiles from 3 seconds to 1 second.

"If the BRSIT switch is not used or the ACM mode is active the AIM-9 will use the SEAM and set the missile to use the double-D scan pattern. If a WCS target is present the seeker head will scan around the radar or TCS line of sight, otherwise the missile will scan around the ADL."

[[DCS: J-8II] More Details of J-8PP and Q&A]

Deka Ironworks has already settled on the PP and ED has pushed the green light on the project.

There is a lot of fans out there who like the F-20 Tigershark. Maybe J-8PP has the same draw among the Chinese playerbase? We tend to forget that 3rd party devs commits many years of their time on a project. Obviously they must select something fun that they like to work on. And for Deka Ironworks, perhaps the vanilla J-8 is too plain and boring to develop.

I can only speak for myself, but I will be curious enough to buy the PP, even if it's a "Frankenstein" jet.

[The Mirage F1-BE is near]

Now they only need to create Javier AI for the backseater  

[Please, remove unnecessary liveries from DCS builds. Put them in separate packs]

14 hours ago, Doughguy said:

Suggestion: Low res texture variations for the core modules, that get replaced with the high res, once you purchase a module.

Same method as with normandy 2

 

In theory it sounds like a good idea. From a marketing standpoint this sounds like a no-go. How bad would it look if there are myriads of gameplay videos on youtube or twitch with low res textures? Ever wondered why there is not a single old AI unit in the trailers?

If ED want DCS to look like a modern game and attract a "broader" audience, they cannot sanction low quality graphics. That's why they review and approve all 3rd party products not only by FM, systems etc. but also modeling and texturing. Certain standard must be upheld.  

[Please, remove unnecessary liveries from DCS builds. Put them in separate packs]

I have to say that many 3rd parties are killing it in terms of bringing a variety of liveries. There is nothing more boring than a module with only 4-5 liveries that are specific to a nation and a specific block. Very hard to build interesting missions around that. A good mix of fictional (can be real, but not for specific model) and non-fictional liveries are essential.

However 40 modules having 6GB worth of textures each is not really ideal, so there maybe has to be some form of balance...