Northstar98

Hi everyone, Encountered an issue with ATFLIR, when slewing it and releasing the image briefly jitters before stopping where it was released. This behaviour is not seen in LITENING on the Hornet, nor any other targeting pod on any other module I've tested. ATFLIR_jitter.trk LITENING_NoJitter.trk

Hi everyone, Certain pages in the F-16 have the cursor move at inconsistent speed when changing direction, leading to it appearing to jump. It's most commonly seen when going left/right and then adding some up/down. As far as I can tell the following are affected: The HUD (for instance, CCRP, DTOS, Maverick VIS etc). The HAD page (though the cursor does move more smoothly - as if its position is updated at a higher rate compared to every other page. Unsure what the rate should be). The WPN page for HARM. Everything else appears to work as it should and motion is predictable (though the rate at which the position is updated seems to be lower than the HAD page). No other module appears to suffer from the same bug (the A-10C for instance is very smooth and very consistent, with the exact same control on my stick bound), there are also no conflicts in the control set up. F-16_cursor.trk

Just going to leave this here:

Have to agree - I'd much rather Ugra add the racing pylons to the static objects (though there is one already) and let mission editors decide whether to have them or not. I'd say the same for balloons. The sort of thing I love. I know the Saal site is currently missing, as is the S-125 site adjacent to it. There is a completely fictional tank range nearby though... Though we really need ED to implement that P-37 and PRV-11 that have both been in the files for over 12 years now and to implement the trailer mounted ST-68U as an EWR. But these sites should be in a more-or-less empty state, so we can place functional radars on them (these sites IRL were quite empty, with radars just sat on small artificial hills and concrete pads). From what I've seen so far, many EWR sites currently implemented in Germany feature tall towers with a small radome on top, I'm not entirely sure what it's supposed to be, but it doesn't look anything like the EWRs present in either the Cold War nor modern day (the linked post also shows that this EWR station is in the wrong place). The other, more pressing thing though is by making towers with radomes, Ugra is excluding the possibility to put functional radars there. Ideally they'd include a structure with a flat top and then a radome static object. Allowing them to be used as functional units, while looking the part.

May also explain why the motion disappears when zoomed in - maybe something that works in principle to LODs for 3D model is employed and this cuts down the refresh rate.

Just an addendum, this video was taken from the above track, with RTSS and DCS' own performance statistics enabled. Ive also switched from MSAA to DLAA, all other settings are as they were in this post. The clouds still appear to be exhibiting unexpected motions as I make small, rapid inputs on the stick. The motion is subtle but it's still there (the easiest comparison is probably at around 18-22 seconds in - pay attention to the cloud just in front of the mountain - you can see it moving up and down relative to the mountain). And as you can see - rock steady 60 FPS once actually in-game, frame times too are basically completely stable. The only time they differ is immediately upon entering or exiting the mission.

I don't have an issue with performance - my missions are kept fairly simple. You can see in the first video I have a stable 60 FPS and the frame time graph is essentially flat - it's very stable. And that 60 FPS is capped both in DCS and in the NVIDIA control panel. My monitor is only capable of outputting 75 FPS maximum (though currently set to 60) and that's only at 1080p. So long as I don't have too many VRAM hungry aircraft in view with full-resolution textures, with more difficult weather settings on maps that have problematic performance at low-level (like the South Atlantic) I'm able to run such high settings and rarely encounter any issues with performance. Regardless though, settings changes nothing with regards to cloud motion, the blurring effect present with DLAA smooths it out but it's still there. Even if I reduce the graphics settings all the way down. The new clouds have always exhibited this behaviour.

Here's a track, not from the same video though (tracks don't seem to behave all that well with the Phantom and this followed a dogfight wherein the AI does different things) - default conditions on the Caucasus map, when I look to the right and make small roll inputs more distant clouds can be seen moving up and down relative to the terrain (as if they're moving with me). CloudMotion.trk

Just as an aside to this - if generic templates are to be used, please make it accurate to a real site in Germany. For instance, the S-200 sites currently implemented have a launch battalion too many (no S-200 site in Germany had 3 launch battalions, only 2).

Here's another video showing cloud motion. This time it's a bit more clear. Some points I'd like to raise: The clouds closest to me do not appear to move in the same way, it's only the next and subsequent clouds further out that do. When zoomed in, the motion stops.

Yeah, absolutely have to agree with this: If DCS ever receives a realistic game-wide IFF system (though this sort of thing is already possible to an extent with RAZBAM's own system), the current way Jester may result in negative training to players, who may come to assume that any non-response = hostile, regardless of what they actually are, leading to more cases of friendly fire. This is already possible in-game - as Dragon1-1 mentioned, Jester will sometimes call out definite friendlies as bandits if no response is seen for whatever reason. It isn't realistic and assumes ROE (and a pretty lax one at that). It results in Jester not really being all that verbose. Given his lack of radio etiquette, this can lead to stepping on comms for longer. I might just have a go at modding out the problem voice lines so only those that just say "No IFF" or similar get through.

In which case, MAN 6. But this cannot be set from the cockpit and the current bug with the CMDS and DTC means it will use what you set for MAN 5.

If in manual, CMS forward runs MAN 5, CMS aft runs the currently selected program. If in S/A or AUTO, forward enables/disables consent to dispense the CMDS-selected automatic program, aft dispensers the currently selected MAN program. The difference is that in S/A the pilot is prompted for consent whereas in AUTO consent is assumed and maintained unless revoked. Page 418 of the manual.

Fantastic stuff @Rick Mave

Also getting clouds wobbling around all over the place. They've done so since the initial 2.7 launch over 4 years ago. Pay attention to the more distant set of clouds, initially they seem to wobbling, like a pressure wave is going through them, then with very small movements on the stick they can be seen to be moving up and down Performance, as you can see in the video is an incredibly stable 60 FPS (the limit I've defined in both DCS and the NVIDIA control panel). My settings are: System specs are in my signature. dcs.log

And if I'm not mistaken, these bunkers are for fuel storage - so an object that's relevant not just for eye-candy and accuracy, but one that actually has an impact on gameplay (as destroying these can result in fuel being unavailable at this airbase). Unfortunately, like most DCS maps, these warehouses are usually in random places (especially ammunition). It isn't relevant to Gütersloh, but Wiesbaden had quite a few fuel bunkers which seem to be absent in DCS, with fictional tanks being made instead (where IRL there seems to be some small buildings and a car park).

Don't know about more common, but these images are circa 2009 and have Sniper: Here's an article about Sniper integration onto A-10Cs, again circa 2009: https://www.dm.af.mil/Media/Article-View/Article/314052/lockheed-martin-completes-targeting-pod-site-activation-at-d-m/

Hi everyone, There's a couple of threads on the incorrect hardened shelters at Luftwaffe airbases, so here's one concentrating on the shelters at USAFE and RAFG airbases. This principally concerns Ramstein AB, Spangdahlem AB and Hahn AB, as well as RAF Gütersloh. These airbases currently have a modified generation one shelter, with an external siding door. An example can be found in this first post of this thread, but you can see that this same type of shelter is also present at the following airbases: Ramstein AB: However, this kind of shelter is only present at Bitburg AB IRL. The smaller kind of shelter that's actually present at these airbases is the original TAB-VEE shelter, which is broadly similar to the mod. generation one shelter (they do have the same external dimensions and configuration) but has clamshell doors internal to the shelter. Here's one such example (at Spangdahlem): Here's an example at Ramstein: Here's a drawing of one with an F-15 for scale, measurements are metric: Apart from Gütersloh, the other type of shelter found at all these airbases is the generation 3 shelter, suitable for aircraft like A-10. While Ugra have done a decent attempt at recreating it, it's the wrong shape. The real thing is elliptical, Ugra's version is semi-circular, making quite a bit taller than the real thing. Compared to: This example is at RAF Upper Heyford, so it may be a gen. 2 shelter which is a little larger than the 3, but the overall shape and configuration is pretty similar with gen. 3. Here are some drawings of a gen. 3 shelter, sourced from this website: The airbase where the current mod. gen. 1 shelter is the most incorrect is RAF Gütersloh, which IRL has a shelter that looks like this: Though note, only RAF Bruggen and Laarbuch have the annex building, seen on the left of this image: Gütersloh and Wildenrath instead, look like this (Gütersloh): Wildenrath: The OP of this thread has already done a pretty good job of modelling this type of shelter.

Yep, looks like most NATO airbases have the wrong shelters. The only exception seems to be Bitburg.

Looks excellent as always!

Okay, that's fair enough. I was just interested because I saw what appeared to me as an inconsistency with in-game behaviour and what's defined in the files I can see and what was being said on the matter. I did try experimenting with scripting to see if I can tell when the isJamming flag gets set to true - not just for the sake of my curiosity, but it opens up a few mission editing opportunities - like having it influence AI behaviour etc, but was unsuccessful. Will do. Thank you.

+1 would be nice to override the sea state (and in general have sea states that go beyond 4-5)

Okay, in what way? Because if ships do use the same jamming flag that aircraft do, why aren't they defined as such in their respective .luas (the same way aircraft are), why does no other module account for it - even for very high fidelity radars like the F-4E?

Excellent! Now we're just missing the bridge across it (there's actually 3 more to the west) and for Gütersloh itself to have more appropriate structures.