Aries144

Yeah, 2.75" rocket dispersion/spread seems much, much too big. The Zunis aren't as bad, though they are still unreliable at hitting single targets at anything but very close range/last second before pulling up. ETA: It seems it's the HEAT 2.75" rockets that have the over large dispersion problem. The HE versions seem to work as normal.

It's amazing! Beautiful models, texturing, the engine whine, the flight model, the CCIP works perfectly so far. I've had some FPS issues, I'm confident Razbam will get it sorted out. I can hardly wait until it's fully debugged! This is going to add so much interesting gameplay to the 16AGR Dynamic DCS server!

Another bad FPS report in VR, I'm afraid. Oculus Rift MSI 970 7700k 16GB RAM Windows 10 FPS is under 45 not just over airports, but anywhere over land. Only flying over the ocean helps. Have solid 45+ FPS with all other modules. Magnificent module though! I love everything that's working so far!

LOL! That's how I feel!

Guys, it sounds like what you're experiencing is the X and Y force axis swapped. You can access the Force Feedback axis controls and swap the X and Y axis to fix this. The reason you're occasionally seeing sudden large left stick input is because the aircraft is spawning in with takeoff trim applied. The force is being applied to the X axis instead of the Y. Something else you need to know is the the force that controls centering won't match up properly if you have any curve applied to your stick axis.

The Rift comes with some really nice on-the-ear headphones. The sound is spectacular. Way better than my SteelSeries headset. I thought they'd be like those old 80's/90's Walkman headphones that made your ears hurt, but they don't. Does having something resting against your ears cause an issue? Do you get feedback holding something like a phone to your ear? If so, the Rift headphones are also easily removable, so you can use whatever sound source you typically use. Other headphones, speakers, etc. If you can make the Rift headphones work though, they really are nice.

Ramsay, thank you for providing that image! Regarding the "Dispersion Area" mentioned in the illustration, you're over thinking it a bit. The illustration isn't intended to be used that literally. Remember, this kind of information is intended for maintenance crews, not engineers. Picture a circle on a target 8 mil in diameter. "8 mil, 80%" means 80% of rounds must impact within an 8 mil circle. If more than 80% of rounds, for a given number of rounds fired (we don't have that information), impact outside an 8 mil circle, maintenance is required. 8 mil, 80% would also be the minimum level of performance before parts replacement or other repairs would be required, not the norm. i.e. "If it get's worse than this, we need to fix something." Please note also that "Standard Deviation" is not what is meant here, but diameter. "Dispersion Area" is naturally a circle.

Does anyone have a copy of that Northrup F5 maintenance manual gun accuracy image? It seems it was yet another victim of the photobucket fiasco. Belsimtek is going to need to see that when they get around to fixing bugs on the F-5 again. It seems they're very big on needing verifiable sources before they're willing to make changes.

I agree. Flying the F-5 for the first time in VR, I found myself trying to move my right elbow out of the way so I could adjust the console light knobs... only to remember it wasn't really my elbow, just the in-game pilot body. ;)

I found a useful quote, with cited source that offers some supplemental information: From "Flying Guns – the Modern Era: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations since 1945" "Accuracy of the guns varies depending on the weapon and the installation. It is measured in mils (one mil equals one metre dispersion at 1,000 m). The .50 inch M3 could manage about 5 mils. The four Mk.12 cannon in the F8U were regarded as inaccurate, reportedly achieving only 12 mils (or 3.6 m at 300 m). The F 100 with four M39 cannon could get all of the shots within 8 mils and 75% within 4 mils. The M61 is capable of about 3-4 mils when internally mounted, although the centreline gunpod used in the F 4 is less rigid and can manage only 8-10 mils."

Other useful information on terms: http://ballistipedia.com/index.php?title=Describing_Precision#Radial_Standard_Deviation_.28RSD.29

ETA: Make a backup copy of the file before changing anything! You can do it yourself. It takes about 30 seconds, but it invalidates your game for multiplayer of course. Look here: DCS World\Scripts\Database\Weapons\shell_table.lua Search for the Gau8, m39, and m61. In those categories, the "Da0" value controls dispersion size. It appears to correspond with mil. 0.0008 would be 8 mil, 0.0005 would be 5 mil, etc.

Wikipedia aside, 8 mil 80% is the value from Northrup for the F-5's M39 guns, and 5 mil 80% is the value from multiple official sources for the A-10's Gau-8 gun. This value is not recorded by firing single shots, but when firing full-auto on the ground at a target during maintenance checks. The gun must meet or exceed that value to pass a maintenance check. It's quite likely better than that when new gun barrels are used, but we have no specific data on that. Simulating these two guns having the worst level of precision right before they fail specifications, 8 mil 80% and 5 mil 80%, would be good enough I suppose. Wind affect on dispersion would require a huge difference in airflow influence between each projectile fired to instantly increase dispersion, right after leaving the cannon barrel, as we currently see. It's so unlikely as to be practically impossible. Dispersion is influenced by 1. internal quality (symmetry and dimensional conformance to specification) of the gun bore 2. consistency of center of mass and shape between projectiles 3. rigidness of mounting to the airframe and 4. barrel heat from extended bursts will cause a temporary increase in bore diameter which will result in increased dispersion size. It must be realized that this is not instant, takes a certain number of rounds before it begins to occur, and also returns to normal quickly with a return of the barrel to ambient temperature, which again happens quickly with aircraft guns because of high airflow and lower temperatures at altitude. The effects of all of these factors on dispersion are fully reflected in the results of ground tests. There would be no difference between a ground firing and an air firing, other than pilot error or airframe movement, neither of which are effectively simulated by simplistically increasing gun dispersion. i.e. if it's a flight issue, this would be reflected by the aircraft shuddering or swaying when firing, not by increasing cannon dispersion. A human player could adjust for this by firing short bursts to achieve smaller dispersion, for example. Aside from all of this, there is no reason or data to suggest that the M61 Vulcan or the GAU-8 Avenger should be so incredibly less precise than their Russian counterparts. So why then is it so in the game? This is either a mistake or intentional. If it's intentional, what was the reasoning?

You've solved the problem of brakes taking too long to stop the aircraft by reducing the brake pressure...?

Thank you sir!

So, I just looked in the files and found that the M61 Vulcan, GAU-8 Avenger, and M39 guns have 3x - 4x larger dispersion than the other aircraft guns in the game. The Mig-29/Su-27 gun is 0.0005 while the F-15 and F-5's guns are 0.0022. The Su-25's gun is set to 0.0005 and the A-10's GAU-8 is set to 0.0017. It appears to correspond to mil. 0.0005 would be 5 mil while 0.0022 would be 22 mil, etc. I'd really like to hear ED or Belsimtek's reasoning for these decisions. Is it a matter of compensating for some imbalance elsewhere? Gameplay? Based on some sources other than manufacturer's data?

The issue is, we don't want a gameplay solution for airquake, we want the aircraft to function in game as close to the real thing as possible. ;) It seems like the brakes are not functioning realistically.

Where is this mod? I couldn't find it.

For anyone else who has this problem: The only workaround I've found is to copy/paste the "cockpit" folder from mods/aircraft/f-5e from 1.5 to 2.1. This seems to fix the issue completely.

I've noticed oxygen gets refilled by a repair.

I've tried uninstalling and reinstalling the F-5 module and also manually deleting the texture folders and repairing them using DCS repair. I'm stumped.

A problem you may have discovered is that, with any curve at all set to the X or Y joystick axis, your trimmed center position won't match where your MSFF2 joystick's physical position is. i.e. you could set full UP trim, but your MSFF2 stick won't be all the way rearward like it should be. It's really bad with helos and using force trim to set the center position. You'll move the stick to a position, hit force trim, then the joystick will want to pull to a slightly different spot. The only options for now are: deal with it as is avoid using any curve make yourself a joystick extension to match the real plane's stick length to avoid the need for curve in the first place.

Perhaps we aren't providing some piece of information Belsimtek needs to address this issue? Belsimtek Devs, you let us know what info you lack and we'll do our best to find and provide it. :)

It's definitely not a placebo. Be sure PD changes are applied with oculus tray tool and don't forget to change the in-game PD setting to 1 and restart the game before testing.

I've noticed that a radar locking onto the F-5 is only visible on the RWR by turning Search mode off. This results in having to cycle search mode on and off frequently to ensure no radar is locked onto the aircraft. Is this realistic behavior? It seems a vast difference from all other American RWR systems.