twistking

After seeing @Silver_Dragon's latest videos, it seems that currently the grey guidance kits are only an option for USN versions (ablative coating). Would be neat, if those were also available for the general versions (without coating). Grey kits on green, non-coated mk-gp-bomb-bodies are seemingly quite common these days.

I see. I do wonder what the fairing is for. One would guess that the two parts were easily connected by just some wires. The fairing suggests that there may be mechanical linkage (why though?). Maybe it's also for electromagnetic shielding? @BIGNEWY Any plans for those modern grey kits? They are soo chic! Green kits are for boomers.

That makes sense. The question remains about grey guidance kits outside of USNAVY use.

Do you know what's the deal with the colour of the gbu guidance kits? They also come at least in green and light grey, but interestingly I've seen all color combination on photos: Green/Green, Green/Grey, Grey/Green, Grey/Grey... I'd assume that the guidance kits's color is just "for taste" and that the Navy made the switch to grey kits at some point to go with the grey coating. But I've seen many assembled bombs with green coating and light grey guidance kit. What's about those? The procurement officer in charge just thinking it looks cool? They do look cool, so hopefully those will be available to us as well...

I'll probably use the grey coated GBU-variants even on USAF jets, because of the looks. Of course i would never tell anyone...

Oh and by the way: Will we eventually see a ground unit/structure damage modell update, for those fuzes to actually make a difference? I fear that with the current damage model, fuzes for HE-bombs will most likely be novelty and cosmetic items. For delayed fuzes, we'd need proper penetration mechanics (structures, ships, maybe even tanks) as well as ground skipping physics (i guess for WW II mostly). Proximity fuzes would need some kind of basic shrapnel effect simulation against soft targets for them to make any difference.

Really looking forward to the new payload settings! But please, please, please, don't forget to add short mouse-over tooltips for the different fuzes that give some basic descriptions. I'm willing to learn, but with these technical names, it will be easy to forget what is what. Tooltips should cover: What is it used for/What does it do? When was it used and by whom?

If the wiki was fed from an open community database, it could maybe also include mission design best practices and tips for each unit. For example tips to deal with DCS AI quirks or "mini tutorials" on setting up a carrier group or how to setup WWII searchlights in a realistic manner... So basically a more open comment section for each unit , where users could share their findings...

it's part of the 2.9.3 update https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/stable/2.9.3.51704/

you can just click "follow" on @Silver_Dragon's roadmap thread here:

looking forward to your model-viewer-update post

The 3d background scene looks completely different between the examples. That would also explain the performance differences. I'm pretty sure that the wallpaper itself is just a png...

You can do "something like that" with sprite based smoke. It's probably way easier with sprites even. ARMA 3 does it with sprites f.e. Of course it looks less cool than the video, because the sprites are quite big and the effect will be less detailed therefore. I would assume that the smoke sprites in DCS are again bigger than in ARMA, so first of all the smoke sprites would need to shrink. Then they would need to react to the wake turbulence calculations. Should be doable without extreme performance overhead. For fixed wing, it's probably still not really worth it, but may be nice for rotary wing!?!

It's highly unlikely that ED would develop and maintain a forward rendered version of their current engine. Forward rendering is also not the problem you probably think it is.

... but wouldn't that mean that you have to manually close the menu each time you blip the PTT? I would appreciate a solution where i could blip PTT without the menu opening at all.

Short press to activate menu is problematic, because it makes it impossible to "click" the radio, which is not only useful, but also realistic. I mean only shortly keying the radio, for example to acknowledge something "non-verbally" or to simply get the attention of your wingman to follow up with visual sign (wing rocking, pedal sliding)... Therefore i think it would be better to have a quick double press to activate the menu. Or have the maximum press duration extremely short (to open menu) to still be able to short key the radio without opening the menu...

I'm also very optimistic. As a longtime stable enjoyer i just hope that my first taste of the binary avant-garde will be a relatively bug free release.

i see, that we both more or less agree and that the argument is about semantics mostly: i feel that my words are a better description of what's happening, but that's a futile discussion. even more so because english is not my first language one technical point though: isn't SSAA just good ol' supersampling? i'm pretty sure that internally it's the same. so SSAA on "x2" should just render with double or (quadruple?) the pixels and then downscale. maybe 2d UI elements are handled differently in the pipeline, but that should not have a big impact.

i do wonder, if it's realistic to expect raytracing in combination with VR. doing some napkin math, i think that modern GPUs should be able to handle a modest amount of raytracing effects. my concern would be CPU overhead though.

I would appreciate another start option for aircraft "cold not dark" in which the aircraft starts with the engines off, but either with ground power or APU running and INS already aligned. This could be used to simulate scrambling, "ready 5" or similar high alert conditions, or simply be a compromise between "cold & dark" and hot start. For piston engine aircraft this could mean that the engine is off, but warmed up. On carriers this could start the aircraft on the catapult etc. Would probably mean slightly different settings for each aircraft and setting, but in all cases would allow a faster "cold start" option. Of course this would be (behold the magic word): Optional!

@BIGNEWY when i was new to DCS there was talk about ED planning to create a public bug tracker, but nothing ever came from it. Wouldn't something like this be extremely helpful for both players and devs alike? I'm sure there are free and open source solution for good public, web-based bug tracking.

@NineLine can you move this to the bug section? To reproduce this bug, simply make a simple flightplan with fixed timings and cold start. When booted up, check the CDU waypoint menu to confirm that TOT times do not match the ME flightplan timing. I assume that the TOT timings are not imported from the flightplan as absolute values, but as a delta from an "init time", where "init time" is not counting from mission start, but from CDU startup.

This seems to be the problem indeed. Time on Target works flawlessly when aircraft is set to hot start. When cold starting there is a delay added. Presumably from the delay of the CDU booting up. I assume this is a bug!

This did not change anything. The time difference always seems to be about 1:30 (the CDU "lacks behind" what is set in the ME). Now i wonder, if this is the delay from the cold start until the CDU has finished booting. Will have to check from hot start.

Will have to check. Yes, i did definitely restart before trying. I think when testing i always started the mission through the editor. Next time i can try it without the editor. The mission is build for MP (so the aircraft is "client" and not "player") by the way...