twistking

Happy Birthday indeed! ************************* Did anyone spot something new in the anniversary trailer?

i hope that ED's solution is flexible enough so that it can scale in both ways. i'm on a 1080p monitor and i have the opposite problem. distant objects are way too visible! i don't complain about them being too easy to spot: i fly only SP and COOP so i do not care about competitive advantages, but it just doesn't look right. on lower resolutions distant dots should appear much lighter/transparent when they are in the pixel/subpixel distance bracket... ED's solution should give server admins a tool to (at least try to) level the playing field, but also give SP and COOP players the option to set their game to their liking. in my case that would mean making spotting a bit more difficult but making the game look more realistic...

i know that the community is advised not to argue against a wishlist item, but i want to give some feedback anyway. i understand that key bindings can be a chore soemtimes, but i think that this solution isn't the most efficient one. if you think about what is difficult about key binding, it's not the shared or common keys, is it? to set up a new aircraft with the most important keys, just to give it a spin, is a matter of seconds. idk. maybe minutes... since you already know what's important (main control axis, trim, gear, speedbrake...) you just use the search field to quickly skip to the binding and set it up. sure, this could be automated - but be honest - it's one or two minutes max per module. the difficult and time-consuming part is setting up the controls that are not common/shared between aircraft. first of all you have to know what controls are important to be mapped (not easy to know when mapping a modern jet with complex hotas), then you have to know what the command is actually doing (for complex hotas mostly). this means that you either have to know the aircraft quite well before mapping, or that you will certainly redo some mapping as you grow more familiar. for me these factors also complicates remapping and refining controls setups on aircrafts i already know well, because maybe i have forgotten the correct name for a specific hotas control, or i have forgotten an additional function a hotas button can have, that might have a big impact on where i want to map it. i think these aspects take the most time by far, whilst mapping common controls is a quick affair. therefore i suggest, not to focus on making common controls easier to map, but to improve the user ecperience when mapping aircraft specific controls. -> for example i would like to have all "important" aircraft specific controls highlighted and searchable. of course what's "important" would have to be a developers decision, but generally i would say it should have aircraft specific controls that should be on a hotas and/or should be very accesible and easy to reach. -> i would also like the option to automatically have the keyboard bindings for those deleted - since you want them on your hotas anyway. -> then i would like to see some tooltips for aircraft specific keybinds, that in a few words describe what the keybind is used for in the aircraft. useful for modern hotas mostly. these tooltips should be searchable, so if you type in "laser", the search would show hotas commands assosciated with firing the laser, even if laser is not in the actual name of the button. -> maybe have the option to rename your physical hotas buttons, so instead of "button 4" it would show "lower 4wayswitch aft" or whatever... -> with this in mind, add the option to mark certain keybinds (that you struggle with, or that you simpyl changed recently and tend to forget about) and have those marked keybinds populate a "cheatsheet" autoamtically. this could be a autoamtically generated page of the kneeboard, or another window that you bring up with a button. it would list all your marked keybinds... tldnr: clever, automatic binding for common controls would be a nice addition, but i believe there are other aspects that can be improved that would have a greater benefit for keymapping... namely improving the mapping process for complex, aircraft specific controls.

@NineLine there you are. the mission is just a player f-16 approaching two aaa-groups. the one to the left is in default mode, the one to the right is in "green" mode. the "green" group will not "lock" the player and not shoot, but it will still search/emit and therefore show up on the RWR, which is - i assume - a bug since groups in "green" mode should not emit at all. current behaviour seems to mimic a ROE state and not an emission state. i only tested this on stable branch. son-9_greenstate_bug.miz

something like this would make sense with the "upcoming" dynamic campaign, where maintainance downtime could be part of the tactical decision making. the obvious issue is, that dcs modules only simulate battle damage. wear and tear is not simulated at all. therefore thif feature would require a significant amount of dev time per module to really work...

i'm away from my pc atm. will do, when i get back... if it hasn't been fixed until then already...

the driver-only implementation of FSR 3 will not have access to motion vector data from the game. i think it will be of limited usefulness for DCS tbh. it's a moot point anyway, since DCS will get a proper FSR implementation in the future, which will be significantly better than a driver-only approach. from my understanding, implementation of FSR is "relatively" easy. so i think the biggest reason, we have not seen it yet, is that ED wants to roll it out post vulcan, to not have to implement it twice...

Das dynamisches Wetter, welches momentan im Editor einstellbar ist, wird nicht weiter entwickelt und ist vermutlich nur noch für Rückwärtskompatibilität enthalten. Ein neues dynamisches Wetter, was sich die neu entwickelte Wolkentechnologie zu Nutze macht, ist in Entwicklung und wird das alte dynamische Wetter irgendwann ersetzen... Bis dahin würde ich jedem empfehlen die statischen Presets mit der neuen Wolkentechnologie zu nutzen. Das alte dynamsiche Wetter sollte zwar in der Lage sein, Wolken zu generieren, aber die sind dann doch eher hässlich, im Multiplayer nicht synchronisiert und verschwinden manchmal einfach komplett...

it shouldn't be.

Hello, it would be good to have loiterung munitions (like the iranian Shahed). Those should not be AI aircraft, but ground launched "weapons", meaning there would be an AI ground unit vehicle/launcher, that would have a (ME) task to launch drones, with some basic parameters to control/randomize the flight path of the drones. That way it would be very easy to set up a wave attack of those "drones" in the ME. The same AI logic could also be used to launch target drones (e.g. firebee), or unarmed UAV.

yeah, current implementation is not very good. there is another thread about it already...

yes indeed!

F-16

i've only tested on small scale coop and there it worked extremely well: no bugs, easy to setup, easy to use. the most obvious thing missing is lack of audio effects... no static noise, click sounds, sound filtering...

oh, you are right. thanks. just tested it. actually i forgot, if i tested with spread 4 or finger 4, but when set to "open" instead of "close" AI does turn in a single POM. "Open" on the spread and finger formations is still relatively close. The only unfortunate thing is, that both finger variants have the #2 on the right while orbit tasks always turn lefthand... and AI turns better when inside the turn... oh well... DCS... now we need righthander orbit tasks... or better AI, or both...

@Grimes your "research" was very helpful. thanks again. however the thing i'm still missing is a somewhat close formation that turns within the same POM. it seems that in every close formationt hat i tried, the AI keeps lead reference and does a "airshow" turn. do you know if there is a close formation type where AI turns while keeping lead on the horizon line? from my understanding that is the more common way to fly formations outside of airshows and weather penetration... in DCS this seems to only happen in open formations though...

try making every unit its own group.

Great! That looks very scientific. I'll have a look... Thanks!

No, those are still missing unfortunately.

a cold war germany map would be even better than a vietnam map imho.

The toss bombing video by Wags, that i linked above, is valid for all CCRP deliveries. If you want to level bomb, you can just fly level through the pull-up cue and release will be on the release cue. If you follow the toss cue with a climb the release cue will just move quicker towards you, because of physics... You can also set the release angle to 0°, which should disable the pull-up cue. I assume that the current implementation is correct. I know for sure, that the old one was not, because obviously the old one was missing the pull-up cue!

Hello, i am currently learning "proper" USAF formations and assosciated tactics. For practicing in single player, i made a mission with different friendly AI 2-ships flying around NTTR in different formations for me to "join" them. However i only get the AI flight to hold formation properly during turns in formations that have wingman turn with "fingertip-reference" a.k.a. very close formations where wingman does NOT stay in the same plane of motion. On more open formations where DCS AI tries to turn on the same POM as lead, it always seems to fail in the turn, leaving it's position and bumbling about until finally getting back on course and catching up. This looks stupid and is of course absolutely not usable as a reference for training... My question is, if you have found formation types and setting combination (formation details, airspeed, maybe min/max turn radii, turn type) where the AI does not bug out when doing turns in a single plane of motion? I would like the AI to fly close "Echelon" (single POM), ROUTE formation (open, single POM), TACTICAL ("relaxed line abreast", very open, single POM). The only formations i could get to work were "group close" where wingman holds full reference to lead, but that's only realistic for fingertip formation (weather penetration, show-formation). Help!

is this also true for STT?

does the viper support different flightpaths/sets so that you could have your normal waypoints as one route and use another set just to put down some lines as visual aids?

I don't ment a literal FIX as in the F-16C FIX function, but a targeting solution, that would make a FIX redundant. Because you would manually aim the TGP at the OA, your target solution would be precise for the target (Waypoint/TGT), because relative offset is known: "Aim" TGP at the OA, hit the TGT! That's how i understood it. Does that make sense? Maybe that's wrong... it was just my understanding till now. Thanks for the graphics. I'm not really super familair with VRP and VIP yet, so i'll probably have some more reading to do. VRP/VIP plus OA seems rather complex...