Schmidtfire

That won't work. And how are we supposed to do that? Rotary encoder is out of the question with that method. Using a POV hat? good luck hitting the exact button and option every time. A next/previous type option would work well not only for those with Rotary encoders, but for those that have few buttons available aswell.

Guess this falls under some sort of wish or request. Would it be possible to implement keybinds to control the Jester UI wheel with a rotary encoder? I have a few of them on my HOTAS base with push function (WinWing Orion 2 throttle) and it would be really nice if I could scroll left or right around the interface by rotating the knob and then select the highlighted "slice/option" with a push.

The issue is really that we have no sense of forces in game. It’s very easy to over G fast and snap the wings. Not something that happens on a regular basis IRL.

No growl unless the armament position switch is up and the electrical circuit is activated. THANKS for that fix!!!

Can we get this to work with ME triggers without using scripts? Long term it would be nice with a supply UI (like the rearming menu) to deliver or pick up inventory when playing a mission.

Personal preference, but I would not choose a mod over a full fidelity module. Even if it lacks the carrier ops. I also understand that some players are fine with lower fidelity as long as they can fly their favourite aircraft. Just look at the F-22 mod! There is probably not one bolt in the correct place in that thing, but many players love it anyways. The don't care if it's 20% of the real deal. That is ok, but it's not for me. Fidelity is what got me into DCS in the first place. Also, having dealt a bit with mods (even created some) I have noticed that it's likely to mess with your DCS World install in some way. There is no right or wrong here. But mods and modules are two very different things.

HB does feature the only DCS F-4 Phantom II module. Not to take anything away from VSN, they have done a good job. But there is a vast difference between a mod and a module. Even the best of mods (like A-4) is not really comparable to a commercial product with full SDK and access to the ED team. It sort of looks like the real deal, but isn’t. Also, running mods risk messing up DCS World on different levels, so it’s not for everyone.

I get your point on the underlying issue. But moving DCS to Deferred Shading was a deliberate choice that left us with what I might consider some of the worst shimmering in any of the PC games I have played for the last 20 years. It's quite bad on a regular monitor and worse in VR. That's not even touching other ongoing issues with the engine like color, lighting, view system etc. On a positive note, I really hope that FXAA/TAA and Vulcan will make it better.

Useless due to awful accuracy? Mirage 2000C has hands down the MOST accurate CCRP delivery of all DCS modules. Just designate properly and your iron bombs will hit with jdam accuracy.

You are right, I forgot about SSAA. Does anyone really use that? From what I understand it's very resource intensive... Either way, none of the options will solve the shimmering. It's not news that DCS World still has a fair bit of issues with it's graphics in certain areas. It is what it is. Maybe it will be improved as time goes on

I have tried the new changes over several sessions this week. It is still more or less a useless missile against human targets. The new improvements does not offset the initial issues. Most of the time AWG9 track will be lost post launch. I don't know if it's due to server desync/lag or if it really was that primitive in real life. In a very busy environment, against different targets at different altitudes, I would say 80% of my shots never held the track all the way to active. If the AIM54 actually goes active properly with track intact, anything at 15k feet or below will have a easy time defeating it due to missile low velocity and long RWR warning time. Despite it's flight profile, seems like the missile does not enter RWR blind spots during the dive. There should be a switch to change target size to small for later active/warning, but it seems that it does not work properly at the moment. My advice is to mainly stick to AIM7 with STT in multiplayer. It is a better missile and more reliable against humans. Not saying HB did a bad job on the AWG9/AIM54 simulation, but there are reasons why few players fly F14 online. BVR you deal with lost tracks or trashed missiles (at best). At closer ranges heading towards the merge, you are trying to get Jester say anything but "unable" or "no can do that, boss"

I would say it is more of a DCS World problem. On old version 1.5.X shimmering was not an issue and we could also crank up MSAA. On version 2.X.X (after deferred shading switch), shimmering everywhere and limit to 4x MSAA (with no other AA options available). Deferred Shading, while looking great in many circumstances, came at a very high cost. Lot's of jaggies and shimmers.

Great design! But 3.999 USD (on sale) for the front panel? It will put your products way out of range for most DCS/JF-17 "non-professional" customers. WinWing has the complete TOP GUN MIP with UFC + 3x displays for 825.90 USD. So it's hard to understand why the Wefly Thunder JF-17 Instrument Panel is that more expensive. Unless it's aimed at the professional market.

Mistral audio has nothing to do with sight being retracted or not. That was fixed in the Gazelle update and correct as is. Audio when out of ammo seems like a bug.

@Hiromachi What is the status on this fix? I played a small coop mission with my friends yesterday and the Realistic ASP reticle/Special Option is still an issue in multiplayer! Unless we play on a server with good knowledge about MiG-21bis module, the Special Option is not working on public servers either. Please, please, please fix this. Or make the special option default (or something).

Sounds great. The periscope will be a very welcome addition. Not many countries use the Viviane sight. Also good for a ”Cold War” environment. In fact it is also used on the M variants together with the Viviane system. But I don’t know the details on that integration. Here is a video of periscope+ Viviane sight in action:

This screenshot is very interesting. No Viviane sight on roof but with HOT missiles. And looking closely inside the cockpit, it seems that the gunner/co-pilot is looking through the previously missing periscope. At first I thought it was the NVG’s, but now Im pretty sure it isn’t.

@Dannyvandelft I aggree. Against AI the Phoenix is good enough. For some reason it does not work well against other players. If you try the exect same shots against a human player, they will miss (unless that player forgot to turn on the RWR) As realistic as possible, yes. But known data is just part of all data needed. Gaps need to be filled by the devs or the overall accuracy will suffer. Going only by known data will result in an inaccurate implementation. If devs need to add 20% qualified guesswork to get a more realistic outcome, I think it’s better than to leave things out.

After some more testing the main performance issues seems go be: AWG-9 inability to hold tracks until missile goes active, combined with relatively low kinematics and easily defeated missile seeker. Tested over and over in PvP multiplayer against other fighter sized aircraft. My verdict is that Phoenix is a near useless missile in that scenario. The pk under most conditions will be too low. From a realism standpoint it’s hard to reach a conclusion. If it suffers from DCS-isms, server lag, flawed missile code or if it’s actually right on the money in it’s representation. But unless running scripted PvE scenarios, it’s not something I would use if the target can A; get an RWR warning and B; pull >5g

Just to add to this discussion. MiG-21bis module has anti-jamming/interference filters that will filter out the jamming signals when activated. When used, it’s impossible to move the TDC (for some reason). Just find it a bit interesting since parts of Heatblur team worked on the 21 module and might know how to implement a similar filter on the Viggen. But obviously very different radars and complexity.

@uboats We need to get a better grip on how the API shift will affect the SD-10. As for voting. Players want different things. Some users want SD-10 with double performance, others want the most realistic SD-10 possible. I think a good first step will be to discuss if the new change will make it behave more realistic? For starters, we know It is not an Amraam. Without knowing all the details, it sounds more like a Chinese R-77 clone with another body/rocket motor aimed for export market. If Aliexpress sold FOX3 missiles, this would probably fit the bill. Actual performance is difficult to get figures for, but the most common is that it is somewhat competitive with the old AIM-120B model. Not saying it’s a bad missile, but would be nice to have the characteristics that sets it apart from the 120.

La-11 would have fit nicely in a Korea scenario with F86, MiG15, P51 and upcoming F4U. The La-7 is a bit.... in the same spot as I-16. Im sure it will be very well modeled, but a bit out of place given the current AI assets and other WWII birds. Im pretty much buying anything Redair, so I guess I just have to deal with that

All good points. Even if Im somewhat doubtful that the thicker air would slow down AIM-54 Phoenix THAT much IRL. It’s still got quite the velocity when starting to come down from 80k ft. But yes, eventually it will hit terminal velocity if falling long enough. Or maybe they built a missile that was designed to hit targets at relatively low mach numbers? Threat was Soviet bombers and cruise missiles so probably targets that could be (in many cases) expected at medium altitudes or lower, but since primary targets had limited speed and turn ability, it was a non-issue for the Phoenix to have bad kinematics diving down into thicker air? Maybe? I have a book where a pilot (or RIO?) mentions that the Phoenix climbs to 80k feet and unloads, coming down at Mach 4+. However, he might remember wrong or listened to nonsense talk about the missile that is incorrect.

Going downhill into thicker air AIM-54 bleeds more energy than it gains by trading altitude for speed. Obviously there should be a difference flying in thick vs thin air. But this is a very heavy missile going down hill at a steeper and steeper angle. Im not great at physics, but can someone please explain how this heavy missile loose speed while trading so much altitude? 10 000ft difference means thicker air, yes. But going 10 000 ft down at a steep angle results in over a 100kn slower missile? We are talking 28.5k down to 18k ft. Four snapshots during the dive onto a non-maneuvering target.

We did a multiplayer test recently and pk is not good, even for a fast missile like 120C against a human player. Anything >15nm is a breeze to defeat in most cases. Unless high closure speeds and at high altitude. So that 20nm PDSTT shot is very unlikely to connect. Problem is that unless you take a Phoenix shot before 30nm you will be at big disadvantage all the way to the merge. Flying a tenniscourt with slow flying missiles. And judging by the current Phoenix guidance/seeker performance, a hit at longer ranges can be considered very lucky. So the window of opportunity for scoring a hit is small. Might be a little bit sidetracked here.. Anyways, against fighter AI and bombers the Phoenix is usually ok. But against other players it seems like all DCS-isms stack up in a very unfavourable way, resulting in a paper tiger. Edit. We did test your PSTT exploit and found it was not viable against a human player. Simply not reliable enough, seeker often failed to get a proper lock and the trajectory was difficult to get consistent results.