Kev2go

the F40 slatted wing type retrofits predate the T.O for the Aim9b upgrade, so its unusual seeing a USAF F86F35 with aim9 capability but with korean war era 6-3 wing instead of the F40 wing type.. Also the F86F-35 didnt see use in Korea AFAIK. The latest block for korean era war should of been the F86F30, which had a different cockpit layout. So in short there aught to have been 2 variations of the F86F sabre.

Perhaps it is a cpu dependant issue after all, becuase after testing F15E, i noticed in comparison the F15E was more GPU dependent ( using like 90% gpu with low level flying but still had more framerates) then the F4E, but less CPU dependant. Id generally hover aroun 30-40% CPU usage in the F15E, but in the F4E i was only using 40% CPU when i had TGP and/or Radar off. When using those i noticed my CPU usage bump up 60-70% ranges. Still not overburned but i guess enough to lose FPS i guess. The smoothest experience with the F4E has been flying with no human wso and with Radar and TGP in Standby. (not used) Yeah i just read the Changelogs on your site. Its good to hear there are performance optimizations already inbound with the next upcoming patch!

didnt notice stutters till the most recent patch 2.9.5 with the F4E release.

I still get same issues as the OP with better hardware . 12700k 64gb ddr4 and a 12gb 3080. Perhaps not as low fps drop but still very noticeable hardware impacts. No other module is this taxing. Get frame rate drops into the 30s In multi-player servers I think radar operation ( or Pave spike imaging) plus human wso is what kills my performance. Flying solo with radar on standby I can maintain 60 to 70 frames maybe as high as 90 on a lower pop server. In single player I can hit 100 frames. flying high and 70-80 flying down on deck. I initially thought it was a cpu issue but the wso I flew with had frames in the 90s on multi-player with a worse cpu but better card ( 12600 and 3090ti) . So maybe its a vram limitation?

I have the same issue. No other module was as remotely performance demanding Not as bad as op buy my frame rates really dip below 60s even into 30s when flying the f4e in a busy server. It's a combination of having a human wso and operating the radar that really kills the performance. Radar on standby and no human wso I can get as high as 90s, in terms of frames I'm wondering in my case if it isn't a vram limitation of my gpu ( 12gb but im not using vr) since the individual of who I was flying with me didn't seem to have such problems. I have a better cpu but he has the better gpu. 12700k > 12600 , 3090ti > 3080.

You trade in the f4 for an F14a on cold war servers and then start clubbing baby seals. Even against ai flight models that don't bleed speed, and have a 6th sense as thier SA.

will the F4E be getting the AGM-45B shrike later in EA? It has a new motor increasing its range over earlier A model.

i just hope the later F4E variant planned ( with DMAS) will also have smokless engine variant of the J79.

Looking at the AH6J mod thats in DCS doesn't look like anything special, like any sort of avionics that would be unusual to see in general military aviation for light utility class purposes apart from SOAR need meeting their requirements of having some attack capability in the AH configuration. The Juliet model little bird would fit in the 90s through to mid 2000s GWOT. MH6j/ AH6J has the AN/APR39 v1 ( or later APR 39A v1) RWR. many other choppers had that from the era like the ah1f cobra, Uh60A/L blackhaws , and ah64a apache. The Trimble 3100 is a civilian off the shelf GPS/Loran unit. Regular army units had similar version of this unit, the Trimble 2100 adopted as the AN/ASN 175 CUGR, used on UH1H hueys in the 90s. as additional nav aid the MH/AH6J had ARGUS 7000 monochrome moving map display unit. This is also something pulled from civil aviation market. The rest are just general analog instruments that any pilot/copilot would need for general flight operation. The only difference between MH6J and the AH6J is the addition of a simple armament panel to control mounted miniguns or unguided rockets, to allow for light attack. There is a more advanced configuration of Ah6J for specific hellfire use, that has a chin mounted FLIR sensor and 2 MFD's for copilot and pilot. but im guessing there is limitations to what even a talented modder. can do without having access to the SDK, which is only granted for official modules, hence only the inclusion of a more basic Ah6J version with only unguided weaponry.

Does this include older variations that are no longer in use like ah/mh6j? I recall reading that all little birds are up to ah/mh6m standards now.

agree to disagee. I think my binos are fine, i have never thought to myself they suck. On the other hand cant say the same about cheap Night vision monocular which of course jut by virtue of being a gen 1, would not compare in any way to a genuine ( not knockoff) surplus PVS14. but i like the "movie" binos

Yeah i have a pair of Bushnells. i sort of do see 2 images They merge together and looks like an ovalish shape. not a tiny circle, it definitely feels like i have more FOV then looking through my cheap night owl night vision monocular.

why wouldn't it look like two converging circles when any other binocular device does?

Only because there were so many m60s and thier door mounts for helicopter use in circulation that it took a long while to replace them all? Us army didnt start mass adopting m240s until the tail end of the 1990s. There is no technical advantage of an m60 over a m240. It's only to be used for Vietnam nostalgia. Or i guess larping being shafted by your armorer, being unlucky enough to have your specific helicopter in the aviation regiment equipped with the last handful of heavily worn out m60s in circulation in 2000s?

i thought it was a US based Ch47F? i looked at the US army 2011 manual. It says either M60D or M240H machineguns can be used, so i do hope that just because ED said its a "2007" Ch47F does not mean its only limited to the M60 door guns.

In the trailer the ch47f was only shown m60 door guns. Do chinooks not use m240's in the 21st century?

yeah NVG needs adjustment its long overdue. I dont see why NVG in DCS all look like monocular vision, I dont know of any platforms that have Monocular devices., most if not all platforms would be using binocular aviator goggles. for US aircraft We would have AN/AVS6 goggles for helicopters, or AN/AVS9's for fixed wing, and even looking at the more modern helos where you can see the pilots head in cockpit.. are all represented as having binocular night vision goggles. AH64D is AVS6, Mi24 pilots model has what looks like the GEO-ONV1 binoculars. So in short the NVG image should be reflected to look as such from the wearers POV.

Flares is Kinda of OT for the bug report thread, but i can easily point out Your attempt at satire post would of actually held some weight if what you implied was actually true. You wont find M130 countermeasure dispensers ( and associated control panel) on any US army UH1H huey in any time period. IF it did there would of been countless photographs of them being equipped with such in combat service plus more importantly referenced in primary source documents like manuals. Anyways its a shame no EGI CDI or An/AAR47 IR missile warning from a Uh1N slapped onto a UH1H, because " its a still a huey or something",

Whilst i agree it would be nice to have a properly slick huey, and still mount M60's without requiring the gunship configuration . However the wire strike protection system appears to be universal if your looking at 1980s era ( or later) hueys. The OP pictured huey is clearly an earlier production/ Vietnam configuration UH1H given it lacks RWR "blisters" for mounting APR39 sensors on the front cone section of the airframe, lacks the windows behind the pilot.

i hope the CH47F we have has datalink modem. IRRC ED had said they are basing it off a 2007 Ch47F. I could only find a 2011 publication, So im not sure what the earlier 2007 Ch47F didn't have, if its same avionics and only a minor software or flight control system upgrade. Now the system the Ch47F has is not a proper datalink with automatic real time updates like Link 16, but from my understanding it works similar to the Longbow IDM.

i would point out that the issue with huey besides needing a cockpit and external model facelift, is that it ideally to also have multiple variations of the Uh1. Im not talking UH1N since its a different service aircraft, but just from the single engine army hueys. The long bodies Hueys ( Bell 205 aka Uh1D and Uh1H) to my knowledge were never used in gunship configuration. Only the bell 204 ; the Uh1B/C/M ever saw the forward facing miniguns, rocket pods, and thier associated weapons aiming systems in US service. Only some foreign operators adopted them on UH1H like the Aussies. As usefull as having flares is on the huey, he M130 chaff/flare dispensers are only installed in the electronic warfare variant of the UH1H: the EH1H/X series hueys and they aren't even mounted on the tail but on the UH1h body just below end of the sliding door, so u'm left wondering what ED source was on the M130's mounted where they are. According to document ( work order ) MWO 55-1520-210-30-48 dated 1980 , the AN/APN 209 Radar Altimeter seemed to be exclusive to the Uh1V ( dedicated medivac that derived from Uh1H). The work order states that any Uh1H's installed with AN/APN 209 shall be redesignated to UH1V. There is also other configuration for the Uh1H itself looking at the 1988 publication ( with revisions up to 1999) like Doppler GPS navigation based system, or alternatively AN/ASn175 GPS system with data cartridge, or even optional AN/APR39 RWR installation, but from what i gather APR39's were seemingly installed in medivac configuration Uh1V, rather then the standard UH1H. So to summarize, the Uh1H we had in DCS was a franken Huey to begin with that had a mish mash of features from various Huey models and from various eras, thus would at the very least necessitate to split the module to a minimum of 2 versions. A UH1C/M for gunship configuration, and the UH1H/V for Slick and medivac roles. A simpler alternative is to have 2 Uh1H versions. Australian "bushranger" UH1H to allow gunship configuration, and a then a US army based Uh1H pure slick that would have some more modern features like the GPS suite to differentiate from the Australian based Uh1H.

There aught to be. With a focus being on expanding Utility roles in DCS, with CH47F and C130 modules, maybe its a time to give UH1H a cockpit and external model refresh. That and a updated Damage model. IF the huey has a hard landing it has a tendency to blow up, whereas with AH64, i have survived hard landings ( by that meaning avoiding spontaneous combustion) that would have evaporated a huey.

yeah UH1H needs a cockpit and exterior model refresh. black shark has gone through multiple updates and the A10 had been got a 2.0 update in recent years. Uh1N is different enough where it needs to be its own module. As an aside what utility helos in general need is to have visibility/ animation of seated troops in the interior. Its not really immersive having troops load up into your helo, disappear and be invisible inside the helicopter.

It is still fictitious in the context of being in a UH1H. The manual you reference TM 55-1520-219-10 is for the Uh1B, not UH1H. I had no reason to ever think at looking at UH1B manual considering we have UH1H model. US army Uh1H manual didnt have any reference to any sighting system period given they didn't seem to use the long body hueys as gunships, but the Australian UH1H manual ( the so called Bushranger) did. Hence thats what i posted, which was the different pattern reticule that still had the same designation XM60/M60 But this just demonstrates why there sometimes aught to be multiple variations of a given aircraft included within a module, to avoid creating a franken piece that has a mish mash of features from various models that a specific model didn't have IRL. Or i guess it did, but just not in US military service.

its unfortunate its not the 9.13. lacking a jammer is less the ideal ( even the current less the stellar simulation of ECM) , when all other contemporary opponents have them, and as pointed out some 9.13's were modded with R77's which would also make an aircraft more competitive against Fox 3' carrying birds. However what else can be said then " it is what it is". This is most capable soviet/russian aircraft ED can simulate, so this is what the community has to settle for. I hope that at least R27ER/ET are compatible with the 9.12 and it wont just be the shorter ranged 27R/T.