Andrew8604

Working the Anti-aircraft guns aboard a ship in DCS can be a lot of fun. What we had in DCS to date was crude and inaccurate aboard the USS Samuel Chase, attack transport ship. And manning those guns no longer seems possible in DCS. Since ED is producing the F6F Hellcat, which fits in with the Marianas Map and an Essex class carrier of about the 1943 to 1945 time period, I think these gun systems of this era should be modeled in DCS, and fully VR compatible. And I'd like to emphasize the DCS player would man the gun director, not the gun mount ...except for the 20mm mount. When manning a gun director or 20mm mount, AI would operate the remaining guns of that ship, not occupied by players, as well as those of the other ships. I would like to focus my request on the Secondary Battery Guns used for Air Defense by Aircraft Carriers and those ships escorting Aircraft Carriers. This set of Secondary guns were standard on most Battleships, Aircraft Carriers, Cruisers and Destroyers of the 1943-1945 timeframe. So, once simulated in DCS, these guns could be used on most all US Navy combat ships, both in Pacific Theater and Atlantic Theater. There were primarily three types of guns used for air defense in the US Navy. They are: 5-inch/38 These mounts were generally aimed by the Mk 37 Director mount, with range detecting radar. The director would automatically adjust one or more 5-inch mounts in azimuth and elevation to the target with compensation for lead-angle, ballistic drop, pitch and roll of ship and parallax between gun mounts and director positions on the ship. In DCS, a single player could operate the Director. 40mm These mounts were generally aimed by the Mk 51 Director Mount with a mounted Mk 14 Optical Lead-Computing Gyro Sight. The Director would be manned by two director-sight operators, one to steer the sight in azimuth and elevation by handlebars to keep the sight reticle on the target while firing and the other to set the range to target by estimation and relation of tracers to the target. The gun mount crew would then make sure the guns were fed with ammunition. The Mk 51 director is remote from the gun mount, by usually a distance of around 30 feet or so. In DCS, a single player could operate the Director. 20mm These mounts also had a Mk 14 Optical Lead-Computing Gyro Sight directly mounted and were aimed directly by the gunner, with an assistant to help spot targets and set the range to target by estimation and relation of tracers to the target. One or more additional gun crew would attach fresh ammunition magazines as needed. In DCS, a single player could operate the gun mount. I suggest the following classes of ships be modeled in DCS to carry these guns, at least initially... Cleveland Class Light Cruiser - numbers of guns varied from ship to ship, but I would suggest modeling a common arrangement of 6 dual 5-inch directed by 2 Mk 37 Directors; 4 quad 40mm mounts and 4 dual 40mm mounts, each with its own Mk 51 director; and 21 single 20mm mounts. Sumner Class Destroyer - again, numbers of guns varied, but I would suggest modeling 3 dual 5-inch mounts with one Mk 37 Director; 2 quad 40mm mounts and 2 dual 40mm mounts with their Mk 51 Directors; and ten 20mm mounts. Fletcher Class Destroyer - I suggest modeling 5 single 5-inch mounts with one Mk 37 Director; 5 dual 40mm mounts with their Mk 51 Directors; and seven 20mm mounts. There are several more classes of cruisers I like to see modeled, eventually, and of course battleships and carriers. But for now, I think these three (or even one) will be enough to start to escort the carrier(s) in DCS. I only avoid the battleships because the large number of guns (ten dual 5" mounts, 15+ quad 40mm mounts and 50+ 20mm mounts) might swamp our PCs. Also, there would need to be IJN ships and AI aircraft.

Any chance there's a 1944 version of a Cleveland class cruiser on the Admiral's slipway? Like USS Wilkes-Barre, CL-103?

In support of the Independence Class CVLs, they carry fewer aircraft and have fewer guns. That might be easier on our PC's. These CVLs typically carried 24 Hellcats and 9 Avengers by October 1944. They appear to have had 2 quad-mount 40mm guns (one at stern and one at bow) and 5 dual 40mm mounts along the port side and 4 dual 40mm mounts along the starboard side...each mount with its own Mk51 (lead computing optical sight set for 5,000 yards). And at least 10, up to 22, single 20mm mounts with iron sights (I think). With AI Hellcats and Avengers, players could operate some of the Hellcats...until, if ever, we get a flyable Avenger. But what I think would make exciting WWII Pacific Theater, Naval Operations missions for DCS is to somewhat authentically simulate the operation of the 40mm and 20mm anti-aircraft gun mounts. You don't normally man the 40mm mounts, unless you want the fun of placing clip after clip of 40mm ammo into the feed locks in support of their firing. I'd imagine that would get boring really quick. Instead, if you want to shoot at enemy planes incoming, you man one of the nine Mk51 directors! The AI CIC watching the search radar (and lookouts with binoculars) will notify over intercom of "raids approaching," numbers of targets, bearing and range. You would then have to see those "specks" and start sighting them and tracking them in your Mk51 sight. When in range, start pumping tracers out there and correct your fire. Your Mk51 could have maybe from 1 to 3 twin mounts linked to it for directing, if you wanted (or whatever the officer in charge ordered). The 20mm mounts would be "hand" aimed through iron sights, I believe, or possibly Mk14 lead-computing sights. Players in the mission could take up whichever directors or mounts they wished, and the AI would operate the rest. And operation of these directors and guns should be compatible with VR. You can get a little taste of this right now in DCS by boarding the Samuel Chase and setting up a mission with some modded Fletcher destroyers and Iowa battleships around. Then use Fw190's in IJN skins to do some glide bombing. Takes some work to set up but makes quite a show. Additionally, a Cleveland class light cruiser could be added to provide more air defense. Coincidentally, the Independence class carriers were built upon Cleveland class cruiser hulls and machinery. Besides the cruisers' 6-inch main battery, they also carried 6 twin 5-inch turrets directed by two Mk37 directors, 1 forward and 1 aft, with radar ranging and ballistic computing. And they also had 4 quad 40mm mounts with Mk51 directors, plus 4 to 8 twin 40mm mounts with Mk51's...and ten to twenty-one single 20mm mounts. Add to that some Fletcher class and Sumner class destroyers and you have a modest carrier battlegroup. Not sure if DCS could handle any more than that plus AI aircraft raids of dozens of A6M Zeros, D3A2 Val dive bombers, B5M Kate torpedo bombers and G4M Betty torpedo bombers. Plus, fighter-screens of Hellcats. But I sure would like to see the Enterprise and Essex class carriers, too. Eventually, the 1942 version of Yorktown class carriers with Wildcats, Dauntlesses, and Devastators for a Battle of Midway map. But that would be way down the line...like 2030...if at all.

This video... Apparently, you have to use the DIR function button and using a Left Line Select Button, select the ACP (waypoint) you want to go to. In the comments of the video... "@47Driver 4 months ago Direct To via the DCT button on top of the CDU. Then select the ACP you want to go Direct To, ie. become the active ACP." [I think he means the DIR button]

UPDATE: DCS ver 2.9.10.4160 -- CH-47F AFCS much improved. It flies pretty steady and stable now. No more finding oneself in a dive after a few seconds of looking down at the center console.

HMSSURP, if you wanted to manually tune in a frequency in the -47F, would you have to go into the CDU and enter a frequency into one of the UHF, VHF or FM radio presets and then select that preset? It seems very unintuitive in DCS. Did the -47D or maybe -47C have separate radio control panels where you just turn knobs and select either preset channels or dial in the frequency? That and that it's pretty much uncontrollable to fly with AFCS off and requires 100% attention to fly with it on. The autopilot hold settings are very confusing, too. I can't get it to work. So, when I duck my head down to try to figure out what I want on the CDU, within a few seconds I look up and see I'm in an uncommanded dive, because the AFCS in DCS seems to provide an unstable aircraft. If I'm looking forward and making constant corrections with the cyclic, I can fly it pretty smoothly. Man!! I sure like the analog cockpit of the Huey in DCS a whole lot better! I just find it easier to read those instruments. Plus, you trim it up and it stays pretty good, even in hover. It's fun to fly. I think I'm repeating pretty much all that you said but in more layman's terms. Also, in ground taxiing the -47F, sometimes it will go forward and sometimes it won't. I sure haven't got that figured out yet. I love flying that Huey in DCS! The only real helicopter I've flown was about 30 mins in a USBP (ex-Army) OH-6A about 28 years ago. One approach to hover, which I held about 10 seconds, and then the pilot took over as I was beginning to lose it.

It worked going from 2.9.8.1214 MT to 2.9.10.4160. Had error as shown in picture. Copy "_downloads" folder from your DCS installation drive to another drive with ample room...such as from 1TB SSD C drive to a 2TB (spinning) D drive. Then delete the "_downloads" folder from the DCS installation folder. When you run the MKLINK command line (in administrator mode), it will create the "_downloads" folder in your DCS installation folder as a junction, or what looks like a 'shortcut'. If the "_downloads" folder is still present in your DCS installation folder when you run the command line, it will say something like, "Cannot create file when file already exists." Something like this: mklink /J "C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\_downloads" "D:\DCS Download Junction\_downloads" FYI... mklink /? Creates a symbolic link. MKLINK [[/D] | [/H] | [/J]] Link Target /D Creates a directory symbolic link. Default is a file symbolic link. /H Creates a hard link instead of a symbolic link. /J Creates a Directory Junction. Link Specifies the new symbolic link name. Target Specifies the path (relative or absolute) that the new link refers to.

After Nevada, Persian Gulf, Syria, Sinai, Afghanistan and Iraq, our mouths are full of dry sand! We want hot, humid, sticky, rainy, green, green, green, big trees! We want SEA!! Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos...1972. We see how large maps like Afghanistan and Iraq are being handled. Do the same with SEA. It needs to be about 650 nm east-west and 925 nm north-south. But only about 40% of that needs to be high detail.

That would be the F-5B.

Thunderbirds are GO!! You see, because the USAF Thunderbirds flew these. Looks like awesome work! ...like it should be a full Mod-u-le. Can't wait to fly it! Thanks a bunch for making this! Might it be possible after you finish this spot-on T-38, if you have the time and energy, to re-3D-model the Community A-4E Skyhawk mod someday? ...including one without the electronics hump? I think its nose and cockpit dimensions are off a bit, the canopy bow too high...as are the main wheels off a bit. Maybe do a TA-4J Skyhawk (Navy's counterpart to the Talon) and an A-4B (Falklands) and just maybe A-4M (with angle-rate-bombing and TV monitor in place of radar) too? The Skyhawk's a pretty awesome mod, too. And an AI "tanker" version of the A-4B and A-4E without hump, using the "buddy tank" store, and see if ED will include them in the AI Tanker inventory?

I tried to replicate this problem, and I couldn't. Although, I see now that you were probably pulling 4 to 6 G's when you did it. I was only 1-2 G's. So, I'd have to test it again. I don't think I would normally use the trim while pulling G's, but perhaps others and real pilots might. I looked with the same view while tapping the trim several times nose-up and nose-down and the stabilator behaves pretty conservatively, only deflecting a few degrees (by my estimate). Even holding the trim for a half-second didn't produce any wild excursions of the stabilator like in your video. Tested from 500 KIAS clean, down to about 160 KIAS with flaps and slats...it behaved well, no more than a few degrees deflection in response to clicks of the trim hat-switch. I don't know why it's doing this for you and others. What was the source of the data of your graph? I wonder what your joystick output is really sending to the sim?

Maybe right here is where we need a real-life Phantom pilot to tell us: During inflight refueling in the real F-4, for instance, once you got trimmed in the rendezvous with the tanker, matching speed and holding relative position...when you moved in for the basket or the boom, would you ever touch the trim again?

How about Wilma or Nikita?

I see how Afghanistan is split up. (I pre-ordered that!) I'm thinking "if" that works out well, a Vietnam Map should maybe be split up similarly. Helo's and CAS work are mainly central and south, while the "lead sleds" are mainly up north, coming from Thailand and Yankee Station.

Seems like the airport at Multan, Pakistan would be a good choice. There's a PAF airbase and Army base there, with aircraft shelters and a ramp. It has a 10,500' x 150' runway at an elevation of 400 feet MSL. Surrounded by flat land for >50 NM radius. About 150 NM from the Afghanistan border, 300 NM SSE of Bagram AB.

1. F-4C Phantom II -- I know Heatblur has the F-4E...I'm flying it! I expect Heatblur will make a Navy F-4B or J or S but will probably never make an F-4C... unless, is there a chance they could team up with Aerges and make the F-4C, which I would buy for $59.99. Probably not a chance. But it would be cool! Heatblur would essentially have the flight model, already. They would have the radar, which should be essentially the F-4E's radar, minus some functions. The F-4E's weapons systems, minus some functions. Probably 90% of the F-4E's flight controls, fuel, hydraulic and electrical systems; and Jester 2 with slight modification. Maybe Aerges could just do the cockpit instruments modifications from that of the F-4E as well as the exterior 3D model modifications...basically just the F-4C nose section, leading edge flaps instead of the slats, and afterburner cans. And Aerges could do the F-4C liveries and perform the flight testing. Aerges and Heatblur could split the proceeds according to a pre-arranged percentage agreement. 2. F-104C Starfighter -- There is a mod already for this and the G. But it would be cool to have clickable cockpit, full systems simulation and possibly a better flight model. ...and in-flight refueling that works. However, they will need to make a G and S version to satisfy all the Starfighter fans. 3. Mirage III -- How much different is the Mirage III from the F1, in terms of fuselage and systems? The above 3 in any order of priority they'd prefer. I prefer the F-4C, but I'd purchase all of them! 4. Super Etendard and/or Etendard IV 5. SEPECAT Jaguar

Basically, the F-15E is now pretty much about like an F-105B Thunderchief. No radar, only Sidewinders and M61 gun and dumb bombs. Let's have more SEA Camouflage skins and make the best of it. How about a preliminary Vietnam Map with detail only in Route Pack VI A area and Takhli AB? The rest of the space being mostly satellite photo scenery. The HUD works. Appears to be only CDIP and AUTO modes for bombing. They work! Manual mode bombing was not implemented in EA.

That F-105 video says the F-105, at takeoff, had a power/weight ratio of 1.4:1. And the F-84F had a ratio of 2.4:1. What?? I think that must have been a weight to power ratio. Right? Thrust-to-weight would be 0.71:1, then. And the F-84F would be 0.42:1. I've read remarks that the F-84F liked to use all of the runway. And a quip something like that the jet would refuse to get airborne until the nosewheel felt the dirt at the end of the runway. I'd love to have a full module of the F-105D...and the F-105B, too. But I know that B won't happen. Maybe some modders can make the F-84F, too!

I read something about the DEs, in WWII, could turn faster than destroyers. I don't know if that was the same with the FFs from 1975 on (the Bronstein's and later). I guess it was just the economy of smaller size, lesser machinery and armaments, except for ASW armaments. Just what was needed to keep pace with the slower ships, which "shouldn't" be engaging surface forces. I believe the DD's could always detect and track subs as well as the DE's and FF's. DE's were probably never expected to face off with cruisers and battleships. Yet, they had to at the Battle off Samar in 1944. At 19 knots, those CVE's and DE's couldn't run away from the fast battleship group attacking them. They had some fast DD Fletcher's with them, too. But they needed New Jersey!! Thanks for the ships you make for DCS, BTW! ...and for your service in the US Navy! Did USS Bowen ever form part of a carrier strike group? I mean, I'm guessing not, if I understand the purpose of the frigates and destroyer escorts. But I don't know other than what I read.

FYI... Doing some light research on the Internet, I found out the purpose of Frigates in the US Navy and their predecessors, Destroyer Escorts. I think I have it mostly correct. So, Frigates, like the Knox class, would generally not escort Carrier Battlegroups, it appears. For those of you who served on these ships, does that sound correct? The Perry's may be exceptions? ----------- Destroyer Escort (DE) was the United States Navy mid-20th-century classification for a 20-knot (37 km/h; 23 mph) warship designed with the endurance necessary to escort mid-ocean convoys of merchant marine ships. Also used to escort Amphibious Task Forces and replenishment groups. Generally, not fast enough for fleet carrier task forces, cruisers and fast battleships at 32-33 knots. They did escort the Escort Carriers (CVEs), which were not fleet carriers and only capable of about 19 knots. US Navy destroyer escort classes - all with depth charge racks and/or K-gun projectors - WWII classes w/ 20mm & 40mm AA mounts Class name Propulsion Guns ASW Torpedoes Lead Ship Commissioned #Ships Speed Evarts diesel-electric 3 × 3in/50 Hedgehog 0 (DE-5) 1943-45 97 19-22 kts Buckley turbo-electric 3 × 3in/50 Hedgehog 3 × 21in (DE-51) 1943-73 148 24-27 kts Cannon diesel-electric 3 × 3in/50 Hedgehog 3 × 21in (DE-99) 1943-50's 72 21 kts Edsall geared diesel 3 × 3in/50 Hedgehog 3 × 21in (DE-129) 1943-73 85 21 kts Rudderow turbo-electric 2 × 5in/38 Hedgehog 3 × 21in (DE-224) 1944-70 22 24-27 kts John C. Butler geared turbine 2 × 5in/38 Hedgehog 3 × 21in (DE-339) 1944-68 83 24 kts Dealey geared turbine 4 × 3in/50 Hedgehog 4 × 21in (DE-1006) 1954-73 13 25 kts Claud Jones diesel 2 × 3in/50 Hedgehog 6 × 13in (DE-1033) 1958-74 4 22 kts - no depth charges Frigates - From 1975-onward (no depth charges) Frigates fulfill a Protection of Shipping (POS) mission as anti-submarine warfare (ASW) combatants for amphibious expeditionary forces, underway replenishment groups and merchant convoys. Frigates replaced Destroyer Escorts and were generally not fast enough for carrier battlegroups. Ships commissioned before 1975 were redesignated FF or FFG in 1975. Class name Propulsion Guns ASW Torpedoes Lead Ship Commissioned #Ships Speed Bronstein geared turbine 2 × 3in/50 ASROC 6 × 13in (DE-1037) 1963-90 2 26 kts Garcia geared turbine 2 × 5in/38 ASROC 6 × 13in (DE-1040) 1967-90 10 27 kts Brooke geared turbine 1 × 5in/38 ASROC 6 x 13in (DEG-1) 1966-89 6 27 kts - RIM66 Guided Missile launcher Knox geared turbine 1 x 5in/54 ASROC 6 x 13in (DE-1052) 1969-94 46 27 kts - Sea Sparrow(later Phalanx) & Harpoon Oliver H Perry gas turbines 1 x 3in/62 ASROC 6 x 13in (FFG-7) 1977-2015 71 30 kts - RIM66 that could also launch ASROC

I'm not having any trouble with trim. Just short, normal presses of the hat forward and back for pitch trim. It's not doing anything crazy. It feels about right, to me. Pretty much consistent with the trim response of all the other modules in DCS. Definitely not experiencing the wild trim changes you guys are describing. I mean, it sounds like something's definitely wrong with your trim functioning by what you describe. But WHAT is going wrong? That's the question. I don't think it can be Heatblur's coding, because it works for many of us...but there are always possibilities until the real cause is found. But then why does trim apparently respond normally for you guys in other modules? Does it work normally in the F-14, for you guys? Your trim hat *IS* mapped to pitch and roll TRIM and NOT to pitch and roll, for the F-4E, right? And if you have it mapped for the WSO, is it the same? Actually, I tried to map it wrong like that, and it doesn't seem to replicate the problem you have. Maybe try a full joystick calibration in Windows Game Controller? It doesn't seem like that should make any difference with the buttons and POV hat, but who knows. Is there a chance the firmware in the stick/base is set to send a stream of button clicks at some high rate which each press of the hat? I can't imagine why, though. Or that some intervening joystick's software app is doing it? Or that the firmware on the joystick is set to send high rates? I wouldn't think so, but why are we players seeing such seemingly wildly different results using the same DCS version and the same module? I'm running it in single player. I think I have multithreading enabled but e-cores disabled, if that makes any sort of difference to this issue. Not sure if that's what "MT" and "ST" are referring to in this thread. I'd hate to see it changed when the Heatblur test team, SMEs and approximately half the users think it's fine. Somehow have to find the root cause. Maybe take one user and do a lot of investigating/troubleshooting to find the cause?

I think you're right. They would have to go as a double-package. And probably have to be done by a team that was making the module, because they wanted the module in DCS. The market would be small. Or, as a mod at least at the level of the A-4E-C. ED could probably make it as a variation on their F-86F. Lots of commonality. Just adding the radar and I think take away the A-4 Gunsight. Maybe the radar could be like Heatblur's F-4E radar, but much simpler. A B-scan search mode and a targeting mode for firing the 24 Mighty-Mouse rockets, I think. It has an afterburner, all-moving tailplane and wing slats. That would be the D. The K would probably be elimination of the rockets and add 4 20mm cannons, and maybe keep the A-4 sight? The 3D model would have lots of changes, but the systems should be pretty close to the same, I think. Maybe for 2029. Maybe it could be part of an "Interceptors" package...with F-86D/K, F-89J Scorpion, F-102A Delta Dart, CF-100 Canuck, F-101B Voodoo and maybe Su-11 (sort of like Flaming Cliffs, but full fidelity modules with clickable cockpits). Probably not. There are no MFD's in any of these aircraft, so no one would buy them.

It does it in the Marianas Map, too. Mag Var there is only 0.4. So, magnetic and true are pretty much the same. But it's not 180-deg opposite to the wind. It's like 145-deg out. I placed 2 windsocks, a flagpole and a smoking fire close to the F-4E. All of the other items agreed with the wind right down the runway, but the F-4E's flags did not. ATC said wind 067 at 7 m/s, when I had set it to 5 m/s in ME.

It's hard to tell because screenshots from my Rift S VR goggles are so low resolution, but the flag on the pole is opposite to the flags on the F-4. I'm not saying the F-4E module is wrong, I'm just saying they're opposite.

It could be that DCS is messed up. Wind in ME with "Display Imperial Units" checked, set to "Blow toward" 271 (true) at 10 knots (at 33ft, the base level, or ground level, I assume. Nonetheless, I have all levels set to blow toward 271.) Still in Nevada Map. The windsocks are trailing back in line with the large runway at Creech, Rwy 8/26. So, the windsocks indicate wind from about 080 magnetic. Magnetic variation (aka declination) says 11.3 at Creech in ME. So that pans out. Wind from 091 true, subtract 11-deg variation and wind is from 080 magnetic. F-4E is parked heading 226 on the wet compass. Add 11 to that and it matches the 237 true heading of the parking space in ME. REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT flags on the F-4E appear to be blowing toward its 7 to 8 o'clock position. So, as if the wind was coming from maybe 40 degrees to the right of its nose. As if 266 magnetic. The wind is blowing to 260 magnetic. That's pretty close to being 180-degrees wrong. My estimate could be wrong and it's as if the wind is from 34 degrees right of the nose, not 40 deg. I connect ground power to the F-4E and call ATC for Req Engine Start-up, and ATC reports wind as 091 at 10 meters per second. So now, is the wind really 10 knots as ME claimed, or 10 m/s as ATC claims? By the way the windsocks were stretched out and the sound of the ambient wind, sitting in the cockpit, I'd say it's really 10 m/s, or 19.4 knots!