xvii-Dietrich

Superb work. It is looking really, really good.

Okay, but then how can we turn these radars in our missions? Would it be possible to control them via Lua somehow? (That would be really ideal, as we could then have a separate radar application/utility... e.g. like LotATC, but with actual positional radar control).

The German radars were featured by @BIGNEWYin the so-called Sunday Supplement ( https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/272812-sunday-supplement/ ) . What is not clear from that is whether these radars will be functional units or whether they will remain as just statics (i.e. targets for Allied aircraft). At the moment, as far as I can tell, they are lacking scanning ability. There doesn't seem to be any way to change their pointing direction.

Last night (or this morning... depending on your timezone), @The_Fragger posted up some more progress news on Discord. The first thing noted was a comment on the previous screenshots. I think most of us are aware that a lot of the screenshots we are seeing are from modelling tools and other "non-game" software, and that it is part of the long development process, but I feel it is wise to mention it anyway. Then there were a few screenshots. The first was really interesting (to me, at least). Apart from the interaction areas, there's a bit of a look at some of the targetting/weapons equipment on the left. (I've no idea what it does, but I'd not noticed/seen it before. There, there was a detail from one of the struts. In case you don't speak German, this translates as: "When operating on the ground, only small stick deflections to check function." However, this prompted someone to ask on Discord if there would be an English language version of the cockpit. To which the answer was: That's all for now, just cross-posting again for people here. Usual disclaimers, etc., etc..

Nailed it. All these points are spot on. While the community is supportive of the concept of multicrew trainers, their practicalities and their actual uptake is a different story entirely. I have flown as "virtual-instructor" in (mostly) the C-101 and Yak-52 and also (less so) the Huey. I've got the L-39, but haven't come across any student to teach. Firstly, the participation has been extremely limited compared to flying side-by-side in two single-seaters. And, even when the multicrew was used, the pilot-under-instruction either quickly got bored or quickly got enough basic skills to want to go off and "blow stuff up". An actively participating student who is learning off the instructor is interesting for the instructor. But one who just ignores the training and want to fly around with a passenger is pretty boring for the so-called instructor. Also, with streaming technology, you can quickly get pseudo-multicrew on any aircraft. The pilot-under-instruction simply hits share-screen on Discord and then the instructor can see exactly what they see and help them learn. You can do this with any DCS module. There is no need for more dedicated trainers over the under-utilised ones that we already have. I also have a fair amount of experience with the warbirds community. There is a lot of excitement for the DH.98 Mosquito due out next year, and part of that is related to the suggestion that there will be multicrew to have a human instructor/navigator/radio-operator. However, while many people say they want to have a human navigator, I've hardly seen anyone (if any at all) state they want to be that human-navigator. A bit like the human-RIO on the F-14, really. Of course any new aircraft is nice, sure. But in my personal opinion, we don't need development on other things either delayed or sacrificed, for an F/A-18D which will see little use.

Looks like I missed a few from the weekend during my usual hunt-about looking for news on the various 'social' media playforms. But it seems that @The_Fragger posted not only some other render views showing the new texturing on the main console, but also some of the instrument dials on the front panel too. Anyway, just cross-posting again for people here. Usual disclaimers, etc., etc.. .

Last week, I cross-posted a screenshot from the Razbam discord showing some of the centre consol work. Ref: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/91082-bo-105-pah1a1-progress-news/?do=findComment&comment=4664859 Today, @The_Fragger posted a full render of part of that on the MilTech5 Discord. Ref for that.... These days, there seems to be a constant stream of updates from both the coding and graphics fronts. It is really great to see such good momentum and the screenshots look fantastic. So, the usual cross-post again for people here. Usual disclaimers, etc., etc..

Another update, posted by @The_Fraggeron Discord today (21-May-2021).

Hello @Grimes, There seems to be an unexpected change as of the DCS 2.7.1.6430 Open Beta patch (20-May-2021). I suspect this has been introduced by this patch itself. However, it is either being picked up by, or propagated by, SlMod. The symptom is that weapon results were previously sub-categorised in the Lua code. So we now get records like this (sorry for the long code block, but I wanted to provide enough context). I have marked the anomalous entries with arrows like this: "<---------------" ["Bf-109K-4"] = { ["total"] = 12272.354, ["kills"] = { ["Planes"] = { ["total"] = 2, ["Fighters"] = 2, }, -- end of ["Planes"] }, -- end of ["kills"] ["inAir"] = 9819.918, ["actions"] = { ["lostTo"] = { ["Planes"] = { ["Fighters"] = 1, }, -- end of ["Planes"] }, -- end of ["lostTo"] ["takeoff"] = { ["airbase"] = 12, }, -- end of ["takeoff"] ["landing"] = { ["airbase"] = 2, ["landedWhileDamaged"] = 2, }, -- end of ["landing"] ["losses"] = { ["pilotDeath"] = 1, ["crash"] = 2, ["eject"] = 2, ["pilotError"] = 2, }, -- end of ["losses"] ["bounced"] = 1, }, -- end of ["actions"] ["weapons"] = { ["kills"] = 0, <-------- ["shot"] = 117, <-------- ["numHits"] = 0, <-------- ["unknown"] = { ["kills"] = 2, ["shot"] = 0, ["numHits"] = 15, ["assist"] = 3, ["hit"] = 0, }, -- end of ["unknown"] ["hit"] = 0, <-------- }, -- end of ["weapons"] }, -- end of ["Bf-109K-4"] In the past (ie. before yesterday) we could get a breakdown of the weapons as a function of the weapon type. This is now being omitted. The "old" style looked something like this... ["weapons"] = { ["MG 131"] = { ["kills"] = 0, ["shot"] = 70, ["hit"] = 0, ["gun"] = true, ["numHits"] = 0, }, -- end of ["MG 131"] ["MG 151/20"] = { ["kills"] = 1, ["shot"] = 435, ["hit"] = 0, ["gun"] = true, ["numHits"] = 3, }, -- end of ["MG 151/20"] }, -- end of ["weapons"] My guesses... I presume that the change is something that might be as a result of the way that DCS pushes events for weapons, or the order/detail of that. This might then be resulting in SlMod not being able to parse the weapon type, and so then dumping everything at the top level. Of course, it might also be a change to the weapon naming (this has happened before), which is then being omitted somehow. But, these are all just guesses. Anyway, just bringing it to your attention. For the time-being, we'll code around it, but I'm curious to read what you think. Thanks again for the support. EDIT (2021-05-21 13:35:34 UTC): On checking the dcs.log file, we are seeing lots of these. 2021-05-21 12:49:56.899 INFO LuaNET: SLMOD WARNING: SlmodStats - nil weapon in hit event, and no weapons fired by client!

@The_Fragger posted another progress shot on Discord this evening. This time not quite so dark.

Ditto. Draken is by far my first choice. But, as you say, it is not looking likely. But hopefully not too far off. Plz?

Yes, this would add so much to this map, and let us push the datelines out more too. It may seem like "just one airfield", but the location makes it a very important change. Thanks @BIGNEWYfor raising this on our behalf with the ED/Ugra team.

I've always felt that the mechanisms for reconnaissance has been somewhat lacking in DCS. Having some sort of recon-pod/camera system would be excellent, and would open up a new mission genre that is difficult to do at the moment. I've not seen any information on the MB-399 pod, but if it or the G.91 (or both!!) were to get one, that would be very welcomed.

I'm really thrilled that the G.91 is coming to DCS. That is so cool!

This evening @The_Fraggerposted four more screenshots on the RAZBAM Discord of the ongoing work with the Bo 105 lighting. These are presumably from the model viewer. Note, just to be clear, I (sadly) do _not_ work for MilTech5 or RAZBAM. I'm just cross-posting their material here for those people who are not using Discord. (I certainly appreciate it when others do this sort of thing.)

I have been doing some experiments with this. I've noticed few things. 1. The Würzburg-Riese seems to have its azimuth off by 90 degrees. For example, if you set both Würzburg-Riese and Freya to heading=0, the Freya points north, but the Würzburg-Riese points west. 2. In the past, the Freya used to rotate. Now it does not. Are you also seeing this? Or have you found a way to make either of them rotate? 3. The Würzburg-Riese should also be able to track in elevation angle. I cannot find any way to change this (whether statically setting it, or dynamically).

Thanks for the clarification. In any case, it is great to see solid progress on all these sorts of things too. It also helps us appreciate the intermediate steps between those first screenshots of what looks like a complete 3D model, and the actual, working module once it is released.

Flyable B-17 ? No thanks !! Here are some objections: 1. Such a massive, complicated aircraft... the development time would be overwhelming. And what would be sacrificed/postponed to do that work? 2. And then who is going to fly it appropriately in formation? Maybe once? But this is not compelling gameplay for be done over and over. 3. And we don't really have any maps of sufficient extent or suitable context. All DCS WW2 maps are very small. I used to think it would be a good idea. But experience has made me change my mind. It really isn't a suitable for the DCS ecosystem. It is much better on the open-world simulators (as the screenshots posted suggest). An AI B-17? Absolutely!! But we already have that. Flyable B-17? No. Bad idea. No thanks. See also: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/228785-please-add-the-b-17-flying-fortress/

Some more progress was posted on the RAZBAM Discord in the last few days. I'm just repeating it here for those who are not on Discord. On the weekend, Nibbylot (the coder) said that they were now working on the internal lighting code. Then today, Fragger posted a video of this working (I've posted a single screenshot from that here). The textures and details are missing for the purposes of the test, but the lighting code seems to be working very nicely. I really appreciate them keeping us informed.

None of the regions suggested so far are close to the magnetic nor geographic pole. So "north" is still off-map, so to speak. But, you are right that there would be some serious deviation of the direction of north (whether true or magnetic) depending on the position where the aircraft is. Keeping it around the Fennoscandian shield and Barrents Sea would keep it well away from the polar regions. Arctic does not necessarily mean Polar.

And, if it was a really simply model... just in a pair of plain overalls, with no distinctive cap, then just the texture could be used to change the colour and markings. The khaki could be used for the Allies, grey for the Axis. Same model, only the texture changes... so no need for making multiple models, but you do get multiple use. Additionally, just plain overalls makes the personnel model transferable to other theatres / eras, and doesn't limit it to just WW2. It could even be used as generic, civilian personnel for virtual airshows or helicopter SAR missions.

We installed the patch (which had a specific SoW fix included - thanks, ED!) when it came out. We've since had two evenings of stability as a result, even with high player numbers (>50) during the peak times. As a result, we are now cautiously optimistic and are starting to re-introduce the mission set. So, basically, the server is up again and we have started the May'2021 campaign. Anyone can monitor the server status via the web here: https://stormofwar.info/

The LuT and FAT are still G7a TI torpedoes, just sub-variants (no pun intended). Otherwise, it would be like saying that they are making an FW190, not an A8. Or, as a more pertinent example, the Type-VIIC U-boat. ED are not partcularly precise on nomenclature or spelling. The current Mission Editor namespace has a lot of such imprecision. In any case, even though the torpedo is labelled as a general G7a TI, it is modelled as a G7a TI FAT. So the S-turn pattern could be expected... especially for 1944+, which is the time period of the two WW2 maps.

The G7a making "S-turns" would be either the FAT ( Federapparattorpedo) or LuT (Lagenunabhängiger Torpedo) versions. The G7a T1 had several of these variants. They were specifically designed to go into the said S pattern into order to criss-cross the path of a target (esp. effective when multiple ships were involved, such as a convoy). The FAT were introduced in 1942 and the LuT in 1944. http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WTGER_WWII.php https://www.uboat.net/technical/torpedoes.htm

It is a bug. The "sturz mV" should be 0.08 s delay. The "wagerecht mV" should be 14s delay. This is carefully explained in the following post, with historical references. Additionally, the "mV" settings fail to leave any bomb crater. Hopefully once DCS 2.7 has been ironed out, ED will attend to this, and other LW ordnance bugs.