zerO_crash

Tripple pylon wings were being tested on some Ka-50´s, albeit in a pure aerodynamic capacity. That´s to say that the outer pylons weren´t wired to the PrPNK-80 Rubicon. The Ka-50 #18 did in fact test the K-806 PrPNK, which introduced a digital onboard weapon system (as opposed to PUI-800 which is original to the Ka-50 BS1/BS2 -> IRL Ka-50 #25) that allowed for 6 pylon control, along with different weapon types on the same pylon pairs. To this day, at least two Ka-50s are used to test equipment which later get´s added to the Ka-52 (software/hardware). The fallacy on our Ka-52 BS3, is the composition of all the upgrades at once, and the fact that it uses the older PrPNK-80 Rubicon with PUI-800 with a 6-pylon configuration. Additionally, MWS is represented on the ABRIS, as opposed to a separate MFD (icons are slightly changed optically, due to a requirement of the RU army aviation). With that said, it's a relatively minor of a change, and everything that our Ka-50 has, was tested at some point on either of the Ka-50s. While I generally was and am against it, the "intrusion" into realism is relatively small/unimportant here, even to the purist. The fact that we didn´t get President-S (denoted as L-370 Vitebsk) is another example of how on-the-line this simulation is. To be quite honest, while F-35 might seem impossible to get right this early, it´s not that at all. Private military analysts (some known ones from Australia) have went ahead and criticized the F-35 program on the grounds of poor aerial performance. The JSF-office have under no instance claimed that the analyst´s findings were wrong, but rather alluded to the fact that incomplete picture of the aircraft capabilities (i.e. the capabilities the military and contractors are reluctant to speak about) is what causes a faulty prediction of F-35 and its capabilities. Summed up, we should known relatively well how the F-35 performs. What we, however, know less about, are the systems onboard, and specifically the significance of the classified ones. If to take the JSF-office/contractors at the face value, the classified software/hardware is what turns the F-35 from poor platform overall, to a supposed force multiplier across the theatre. If ED states that they got enough information, I believe them. It´s better to wait and see what this turns out to, rather than make claims on before hand, which might turn to be unfounded. Lockheed even has their own F-35 simulated in Prepard3D. Again, this might very well be doable, however I do expect ED to come out with more information when time permits, to assure quality through demonstration to community. Paperwork on aerodynamics/CFD, paperwork on different systems onboard, and most importantly, at least some information around what will be left out due to classification, and what sort of impact one can expect in the performance of the jet (estimate at best). Beyond that, I´m sure they wouldn´t have chosen to create something out of line, even though it sounds like it. (Remember that even though the F-35 is the newest, that newest made its first flight some 25 years ago. It´s not even best, as that seat is occupied by F-22.).

I´m sure it will come, very much like the Polish liveries for AH-64E (albeit D for us here) when those get delivered. Seeing how some important components are undecided yet, I wouldn´t worry about it at all. We´ll get it.

Absolutely fantastic news! There is much new, and that's definitely the way to go - constant developments and improvements! Big thanks to ED and all sub-contractors (3rd parties)! You deserve praise for the quality and authenticity of DCS! Let's keep at it!

• Рекомендуется при пикировании (особенно на высокой скорости). • Меньший расход топлива (#Чиж). • Более высокая горизонтальная скорость (в пределах возможностей двигателя). Также в холодном климате. • Позволяет безопасно тренировать авторотацию. (Можно практиковать и с уменьшенной мощностью двигателя.)

Generally, I don't see why a MiG-21 package couldn't be priced at $79 from the get-go. Some of those members who joined DCS in the past couple of years, are a strange breed - there is little thought of what they are actually paying for. Those of us who have been here from the beginning, have gotten over 15 years out of modules like Ka-50/A-10C, and we still continue to invest time into them. Therefore, acting a cheapskate and claiming $10 and $15, becomes outright silly. This is further exacerbated in the fact that we finally have a chance to start fresh here with the MiG-21. There is little point in pulling a dying cat. Times were different when our current MiG-21Bis was released. Particularly, few acted on accountability due to lacking in-depth systems modeling (sight, ++++). It was as it was something fresh and new, thus much was forgiven. Something that might be difficult for new members to understand is that DCS only started to dish out new modules every year (or two) in recent times. BS1 was out for years, before A-10C came out (not even in the same environment, it was either or). Patience and proper planning ahead, is key here. Getting to the point; considering the state that the MiG-21Bis is in, and the fact that solutions were made by customizing the production process, it only seems logical to me to start fresh from scratch. You already have one variant which is wanted - MiG-21Bis. M3 has info on it (granted, more might be needed for some systems to be properly simulated). Still, much of the hard part is finished (getting reliable information). MiG-21Bis is a dedicated A-A variant, with secondary A-G capability. As such, the second variant would logically be a A-G focused one. Multiple factors considered, a PFM would be a solid second choice. Here's the reasoning: a) It would finally introduce a Russian fixed wing with guided weaponry (Kh-66 GROM). It would also allow to use the weapons listed on MiG-21Bis, which Bis cannot use (due to the radar sending out two beams, instead of one - has to do with targetting). b) It would fit very well time-wise with current AJS-37 and F-4E, +++. In particular, we should consider the fact that it's better, in this case, to have a more advnaced variant, as it can be adjusted for backward (in time) compatibility by limiting its ordnance. Particularly in early-to-mid Cold War, the major improvements were in weapon capability. While MiG-21s generally behave relatively similarily, you can, by adjusting available weaponry/cooling fluid for radar, simulate a MiG-21 A-A variant which has no radar and only access to R-60s... This is just an example, but it fits well with the AJS-37 and F-4E as well. With a bit of creativity, and smart thinking, you can easily replicate 3rd gen MiG-21s with the Bis. You can even simulate 2nd gen., if you go back all the way with weaponry (R-55). c) We would gain a different layout MiG-21, which would have an earlier fuselage revision (smaller spine), thus allowing any future ventures to expand from two different types of MiG-21 that we have. While I mention that two distinct MiG-21s could be made for $79, honestly, with a PFM, you are already well above a PF. With certain adjustments, that could be brought in. Equally, with a MiG-21Bis, you have most of a MiG-21M. All of a sudden, we could be talking about four variants of the MiG-21, alas that of what Aerges is doing with the F1... Again, imagination sets the limits, but with a little common sense, it would allow the studio to earn money, and appeal to those of us on the RU-side. BTW. From a MiG-21PF, you are much closer to a MiG-21F-13, than from a MiG-21Bis again. d) With some clever technologies in house, and modern techniques, the MiG-21 should sell like hotcakes, as it is a historically accurate competitor to some of the most popular modules here. M3 - Think over it. It could be a good business, granted - this time, it has to be done right.

Hi, While building a mission, I noticed (and tested myself), that the Sa-342M (Vivane Optics Suite) interferes with the rotor animation. This can be easily replicated: 1. Spawn a hot-started Sa-342M in the editor and run the mission. 2. Keep the collective at lowest position (not the throttle, mind you). 3. Move the cyclic maximum forward (away from the pilot), and slightly to the left (with helicopter point at 0*/360*, move the cyclic to 330* position). 4. Look from F2, and notice how the rotor clips through the Vivane optical sensor. If pictures are needed, shoot, and I'll upload some. zerO

Когда тело пилота? Очень долго — кабина пустая в VR… Также карта долго загружается на АБРИС, символика отстаёт… Об этом уже сообщали.

It's irrelevant of the armament used, but no, it does matter in which position you have the laser code knob. Anything else would point to a bug. EDIT: Let me specify. An actual procedure would most definitely require you to set a specific laser code, that as a means for the pilot to make a dedicated step towards confirmation pre-employment and avoiding a mistake made. As to the mechanical launch, it shouldn't actually matter (unless DCS). Kh-25ML was never tested on the Ka-50 as far as publically accessible information is concerned. It was stated as a possibility, and while ED did guesswork here, they did so on a very strong basis. The basic lock-on procedure in question, is conceptually no different than any other laser-/heat- seeker in the early stages of operation (until lock-on is achieved). As such, should a Ka-50 customer ever want this functionality, it would most likely be implemented in the way heatseekers are - HUD represents a boresighted seeker of the individual armament on each pylon. Pilot, then, steers seekerhead (HUD) towards expected illumination and waits for it start tracking. While the workings of a Kh-25ML (just as any armament) depend very much on the onboard equipment, Ka-50 provides enough for the missile to launch and engage an effective lofting profile (range from laser range finder is used for that). As an example, Klen-PS from Su-17/-25 series of aircraft allowed the missile to be fired off bore by 12* in azimuth and (+6*) - (-30*) in elevation. In any case, the seekers on these missiles, would normally be set by the crew on the ground by the means of physical adjustment on the actual missile. Ka-50 would most definitely not have a deeper integration than basic functionality (as today) in its bort #25 iteration (or any other bort known at the time). A later upgrade, might have changed this, but that is contemporary. Therefore, while you procedurally should set the proper laser code, you technically shouldn't need to. Уголок неба ¦ Х-25

They work separately between Ka-50s. It is however a completely different system to the western one, and it also is programmed as such. You cannot guide munitions for western weaponry, and vice versa.

Forget it by a long shot! Mi-24P was already pushing the line. After the beginning of war in Ukraine, and generally cooling international relations, we would most definitely not have had any one of the Russian modules that we have today. Maybe L-39C and FC with SFM (forget PFM). Knowing that DCS is used by professional militaries to prepare their pilots even on basic stages, Russia would never allow that. We will likely not see a Ka-52 in this life.

IT-23 showed such information back when there was no ABRIS, but rather a map on a roll. The instrument in question is the PA-4-3. If you've seen the map position projector in the Mi-24 (showing your current doppler position on a paper map), then this is what the PA-4-3 was, except the pilot never moved the map himself. Instead, the tablet had an automated system and a paper map in a roll with 26 frames. The scales were 1:100.000, 1:500.000 or 1:1.000.000. As the helicopter flew, the map would move top to bottom. The PA-4-3 was unable to show datalinked information in realtime, obviously. As such, the IT-23 would be used to show that additional information on a vector map. In other words, the pilot would only know references, but not exact positions (approximate positions could be extrapolated). When ABRIS came forth, the Ka-50 not only gained a virtually unlimited cartographic capability, but also the ability to overlay that information from IT-23 on top of it (not even mentioning GPS, +++). At that point, the system became pointless, and the very visuals that you see in the picture, got implemented in the ABRIS moving map system. That functionality fell then away from IT-23. More is better, sure, but we already have a correct (to the bort) implementation of the system, and a much better one. It would make no sense to have this implemented.

Very poor comparison! Mi-24P has been test-flown and indeed operated in limited numbers with NVG-equipment despite the cockpit not having proper lightning (Afghanistan). It was flown with internal lights off in the pilot cockpit. That goes for Mi-8 as well. Lots and lots of misinformation on the forums. I would know, I'm partly Russian.

@uboats Is there any hope for even the most basic pilot body in the JF-17 cockpit? It does a lot to VR immersion.

Во многих отношениях сопоставимо.Теоретически возможно летать с таким, что также подтверждено практическими испытаниями. Основная опасность заключается в резком смещении центра тяжести на очень высокой скорости (200 км/ч-250 км/ч+). Может не выйти из немедленного пикирования. Килю нравится оставаться целым под сильным огнем. Недостаток продвинутого моделирования повреждений или конструктивная особенность (слабое звено/соединение, чтобы избежать катастрофического отказа).

Well, with dynamic foveated rendering ( Pimax - Quadviews) you'll get that increased resolution. Not really familiar with their nomenclature. Anyways, you could indeed try out lowering the resolution/turn off Quadviews to see if that bears any effect. In essence, a display has fixed amount of pixels, thus anything claiming improved native resolution (Quadviews), is simply interlacing the picture for a better grand effect. Still, the upscaling can in certain instances provoke graphical glitches.

Это! Почему старый удалён, когда новый не там?! В виртуальной реальности пусто...

@Dallatorre Good video overall. You should however test spotting against sky, not ground. Spotting targets below the horizon (particularly against ground), will always yield worse results than spotting against a blue sky. Afterall, we are talking about maximums here, and in best conditions possible conditions. There does seem, however, to be a problem with the rendering making "jumps" between close/far rendering of an object, depending on how close or far it is away from you. It doesn't seem to be a smooth transition. There is definitely room for improvement with regards to this.

I said I can potentially spot at 30nm+, but it is not something that is consistent. Typically, the target has to fly high, albeit not too high (in the right part of atmosphere (background) relative to my position). I am not certain this is related to redolution scaling, as HP G2 is 2160x2160, which isn't a big difference vs. your Pimax. This becomes even more true, when you consider Pimax having yhat resolution on bigges screens due to the increased FOV. This taken into account, the PPI would be more similar, if not almost the same. I have an unusuably good sight, so I'm not sure if all G2-users can see as well. Still, I'd wait to see with the next updates if it improves for you. 6nm sounds incredibly poor to me. I presume that you have confirmed that your Pimax is setup properly? For reference, if you've every looked up at the sky and seen a passanger plane fly, being recall the size of the aircraft and its altitude (skyradar), you can basically make some extrapolations. What is the smallest part of the aircraft that you can reliably discern, and how big is that part of the plane. You'll quickly come up with the fact (assuming you have 20/20 or better eye sight) that 6nm in DCS for a fighter jet-sized target, is actually pretty poor.

The only cases I've seen someone want yo use it, are people with some form of neck damage, reduced physical ability or simply age-related. In fact, there is something called "feedback", which they then degrade vs. someone having a 1:1 movement ratio. Still, I'm sure that this can be solved by applying a more restrictive registry check. In general, DCS is a simulator, not Quake. The perception of "competitiveness" is completely dumbfound. IRL, there occur individual restrictions on airframes (lift, speed, temperature, etc...) due to imprecisions in manufacturing (more often damage, but not severe enough to require the change of an expensive component). As such, ED ought to start educating its userbase, such that more realistic implementations can be made down the line, rather than mainting the average sandbox mentality that promotes fooling around. Then there is the concept of accepting flying a more inferior aircraft, and rather using one's head to actively make the best out of it. The good old fighting spirit seems to be completely gone. It's very clearly not a mentality promoted in the west these days. (eye of the beholder).

Look what you are asking about. You are asking about how automatic "slewing" (Shkval) worked with PrPNK-80 (Rubikon). As stated above, both are part of the PrPNK-80 (Rubikon) complex. Two of the four computers (+ a 5th IO one) comprising the system are interfaced with PVI-800 and DL respectively. You do not understand the system. Don't worry, I'll explain to you how everything is connected together. I will however do it on the ENG forum though, so as to respect forum etiquette. I'll describe it in my Ka-50 post and refer to you, such that you get a notification. I'm on a business trip, but it should be up within a couple of days. (Tip: This goes into greater depth of the system, but what PVI-800 is actually capable of storing (amount of different types of waypoints), stems from the capacity of the memory in the PrPNK. PVI-800 is literally designed based on the functionality & limitations of one of the ЦВМ 20-751 (TsVM 20-751) computers. ПРЦ (DL) works off another.

Повреждений может и не получал, но испытания со снятым килем проводились и вполне успешно.

PVI-800 & DL.

I am running 4x MSAA, such that the aliasing is being done within a pixel. When seeing jet-sized targets at above 30nm, it's sub-pixel size target, and nothing solid (no dot). It's as described, a very soft silhouette/shadow, and very mild at that. It does indeed become something that you "might" notice, but are far from guaranteed. With what you are mentioning, it might very well be that you are one of those affected as per latest patch notes. Generally, the spotting has been good over the last 1-ish year +. Default (non/improved - realistic), with a option for "improved" with somewhat more defined "black dots". What you can try, is set up an engagement in editor where you start in the air with a aircraft ahead of you. Start with a tanker/bigger plane, and go to smaller ones. Try to measure at what ranges you can actually see the following, bearing in mind that aspect plays a role. That would provide a reference for just how much you are affected by the current update.

Which option are you using? Also, what does "anything" mean? How far out?

Who premise based on which some make argurments here, is really funny. The concept of "competitiveness" and that some request to balance out their deficits by implementing features which are unrealistic at heart, bolstering their cause by pretending imaginary army of VR-users-of-the-world-unite... Yeah! I use HP G2, and am specifically using the default (non-articulated) spotting dot. Isolating the question of whether this is real or not to how this compares to IRL, it is exactly as it is supposed to be. A pilot doesn't use MKI eyeball to spot infantry out of a jet, and even finding vehicles the size of a artillery or tank, can very often pose a challenge depending on the surrounding environment and its complexity. With non-improved spotting, you don't get a magical dot, but rather a natural fade-in of a unit. The best way to test this, is by using A-A as a benchmark. I am able to spot a jet-fighter sized (F-16/MiG-29) target at some roughly 12-18 miles depending on factors like lightning/background/camouflage/aspect/etc... If I focus deeply on an area/point, I can pick out a soft shadow of a fighter at as much as 24-25 miles. Those metrics, are absolutely within what IRL numbers are! Now, attempting to find a target on the ground, becomes obviously more of a feat considering obstructions and the likes. Still, if you "articulated" spotting dot, you will see ground targets as groups of lack dots intermingling outside of the drawing distance (flying at higher altitude). This, for one, is not only ruining immersion, but also giving a negative impact to ground warfare, as it allows to see units that upon zooming or using optics, are behind obstacles. As such, regardless of your sight (use VR glass inserts), if you care about realism, then I can tell that default spotting is actually on point and realistic. (I have the same confirmed from friends running other VR headsets - Oculus, HP and Pimax). With regards to what is being done online (MP), you will never be at an equal with someone using TIR5 and the ability to tilt their head 10* for a complete rear view. There are positives and negatives to each system, but attempting to customize DCS based on what you experience in MP is ridiculous. At best, it would be an idea (I have voiced it before), to have ED introduce an ability for a server host to decide whether a server should be open to all, only TIR5/non-tracking users, or only VR users. If this is doable (based on settings in DCS (VR enabled/disabled)), you could find servers where the common ground is adjusted. At the end of the day, even though someone might fly with TIR and have the ability to use a higher pixel screen or look around without straining themselves, it's actually VR that is point accurate with IRL. Take that with pride, and instead, find a better server, honestly!