Mfezi

That describes me and virtually all my colleagues perfectly. We all have dual boots, and all of us use the Windows boot for only one thing: gaming. I do everything else in Linux. I use and write mostly computationally expensive code, from aerospace simulations to aerodynamic modelling code, system identification and state estimation routines (used in creating flight dynamics models from flight test data), etc. At some point or another, we have compiled most of our code on Windows also, but all our development is done on Linux. I have never, ever seen a piece of code that pushes the CPU performance (or GPU for some mathematical solvers), that ran at the same speed or faster on Windows than on Linux. In most cases, the performance is significantly better in Linux. And if you are doing a major multi-disciplinary optimisation problem that is going to run for a week on Linux and two weeks on Windows, the choice is rather obvious. I would love to get rid of Windows (and the last few weeks, when it was trying to push the Edge browser on me again, I almost did that), but unfortunately I still fly a bit of DCS and play a few other games and therefore just cannot do so just yet. I can't wait for that day, however...

Same as the other comments: I can't vote in this poll, because none of the options say "keep the current payment model".

Regardless of "fictional" or "generic" - I still have absolutely zero interest in it and don't see why any resources should be wasted on it while we are waiting for so many interesting real world maps.

I also think that would be a fantastic map from so many perspectives. However, it is also a very busy area in terms of built up areas and there are a huge amount of very unique landmarks in that area. If they can find a way to make it work - it would be great. I would buy it.

Wow, since my last post I did a bit of research on this poster (not just here, but going back to at least 2011/2012 on various other forums). He has a very long history of attacking ED and got banned on at least one other forum for doing so. He is not new to sims or DCS by a very long shot. Unfortunately, that's the way of the internet, as per my own experience starting with Usenet in the early 90's: Try and help people and every now and again you WILL fall victim to a troll.

Please read my posts more carefully: I responded only to your questions about the AMRAAM on the A-10. It was clear by then that you already knew why certain things were still missing on the F-16. The two issues are unrelated: 1) Missing items on F-16: Because of early access - to be added later (if applicable to the real jet). 2) Missing AMRAAM on A-10C: Because of reality - never to be added.

Which answer do you think did I not read before I wrote that response? Did I maybe misunderstand your point about the A-10 that apparently can fire AMRAAMs in BMS, which would be completely wrong? Did I misunderstand that you were still, at that point in the discussion, asking for AMRAAMs to be added to the DCS A-10? I'm sure by now it has become quite clear, although Kang already answered it very clearly in post #13 of this thread and I thought I did the same: Real A-10C as operated by USAF: 1) No radar 2) No AMRAAM DCS A-10C module: 1) No radar 2) No AMRAAM Therefore, my response to your last sentence above is yes, since the real USAF A-10C did not have a radar, I was certainly happy to buy the A-10C module in DCS also without a radar. In fact, I would have been pretty annoyed if they did put one in. Perhaps I should also warn in advance, there are many other jets in DCS that also don't have radars, just like their real life counterparts. Therefore, be careful and do a bit of reading before you buy any other modules. Also, as you have already seen with the F-16 - read carefully what early access means and in what state of development the module is before you buy.

You ask whether this is a forum or a court, but really, look at your initial post: It was not a question from a "new comer to learn", as you now claim in your previous post. You didn't ask, you criticized. You said, and let me quote: "It is just pitty, plus VERY dissapointing from the CUSTOMER's point of view." That is not how you end a post if you were simply inquiring. On the A-10, you are asking for a feature that goes against the whole point of a simulation: In this case, for the developers to waste their time so you can put weapons on an aircraft that in real life never carried them and that never will carry them because they require a radar for proper employment, something that said aircraft doesn't have. Isn't there enough scope in the program already to explore an infinite number of scenarios? Why do you want an AMRAAM on an A-10? Your question is no different than if you asked for sidewinders on the I-16. As for your mention of BMS: If you were able to shoot AMRAAMS from an A-10 it is a fault in BMS, not a feature and very definitely not one that should be duplicated in DCS.

Maybe I misunderstand the rules, but I do not see how the above quote prevents you from using a feature in another game by way of example to illustrate an idea. I read the above rule as one that is specifically meant to prevent the DCS forums from being used by competitors to advertise their products or to slate DCS. Since the DCS dynamic campaign is in development, people are going to make suggestions on this forum and a lot of those will come from their experiences with other games. In fact, until we see what ED has in store for the dynamic campaign, our only reference will be other simulators and their own attempts at dynamic campaigns. As I said, my interpretation may be wrong, but I very often see references to IL-2, BMS and many old, out of production simulators in posts that do not get censored. I can only presume that ED administrators know the difference between abuse of their forums for advertisement, and neutral discussions ultimately aimed at improving their product.

I also completed the campaign about a week ago (using the latest Open Beta). Everything worked, but what I did with the TGP and MAV pages in the last mission was to adjust the contrast a lot until I could see what was going on. I never considered trying day mode, but in night mode they worked fine IF you adjusted the contrast properly. I would do it before hitting the IP, when you still have time to mess around. I'm happy to say that everything worked as expected in Open Beta. There was only one tiny glitch: I can't remember which mission it was, but it could have been the 2nd, 3rd or 4th one - the developers will know - it was a night mission and right at the beginning an F-117 comes in to land. What happened was that the moment you ask for permission to taxi, ATC goes into a loop to "hold position" that is repeated over and over (I tried the mission more than once to confirm). If you ignore ATC, taxi and take off anyway, the mission continues as required, but your wingman is stuck for a while and takes off extremely late, joining you only about halfway through the mission. And to cap it off, after the mission my normal parking spot was taken by the F-117 - I almost taxied into the back of it! That part may have been by design, not sure... The whole mission does work, so I don't consider it a serious bug at all, but perhaps the timing of the landing F-117 can be changed so as not to cause the never-ending "hold position" ATC bug to appear. Overall it was an excellent campaign and I learned a lot of new things, despite already having been familiar with the A-10C. I was pleasantly surprised that the whole thing also worked in the latest Open Beta with only that one minor glitch. By the way, the flares in the night mission worked really well. I only ended up dropping a few of my own illumination flares right at the end to take care of the last remaining truck.

These user made dynamic campaigns are fantastic and I truly take my hat off for the developers. It is a great way to get something akin to a dynamic campaign in the meantime. However, they are unfortunately not quite what a dynamic campaign like the one in Falcon 4.0 is. Once again, because DCS has a completely different base system, I don't expect them to copy Falcon's system, therefore my hope that they will provide a bit more detail in future. But I have played flight simulators since Wing Commander on the Commodore 64 (not to be confused by the much later space game by the same name from Origin Systems), through a large majority of the WWII and modern air combat simulators that came out throughout the 80's and 90's up to today. The campaign model of Falcon 4.0 just happens to have always stood out for me, as it really created an atmosphere of participating in something much larger. I assume most people here know how the Falcon 4.0 campaign system worked, but for those who have only played DCS and one or two other simulators, let me give a rough idea of what it is about: The Falcon 4.0 dynamic campaign basically runs a 2D RTS-type war in real time over the entire map, and this war runs once you enter the campaign mode regardless of whether you fly missions or just stay in the UI. You can speed up time, of course, which lets you do things like letting the war develop for the first day or two before you get involved, or you can fast forward through each night if night flying is not your thing. The system then continually generates a large Air Tasking Order, which involve both small and large packages. A package usually includes multiple types of aircraft from multiple squadrons. Assets involved, whether they are participating aircraft, ground units or potential targets are drawn from a huge order of battle for each of the countries or alliances involved. Of course damage is tracked throughout the war, although certain things are repaired over time. Targets are not chosen randomly - they depend on the various active strategic and tactical priorities going on at that point in the war. You are part of a squadron, again for which the pilots and aircraft are tracked (if the campaign balance is set up to highly advantage the enemy, it could happen that your squadron runs out of aircraft or pilots, although you do get replacement over time). You follow the real-time air tasking order and when an interesting mission comes up (let's say flying in the SEAD component of a large strike package looks like your thing), then you can decide to fly it. If you don't, the AI will fly it anyway using one of the other named AI pilots in the squadron. Which element you fly in the formation also depends on your rank, which means in the beginning you may only fly as wingman which in turn limits which orders you can give during the mission. The system makes it possible to simply follow the ground war, or you can direct the ground war (either by setting strategic priorities or by setting goals on a more tactical level - like directing a tank battalion to take a town), or you can choose to jump in and fly at any point. If you jump in early enough when a new mission comes up on the ATO, you get to start with a dark cockpit, or you can start lined up on the runway about 2 minutes before takeoff, or you can start at any point during a mission. What is so cool is that since this is effectively one giant RTS game, when you take off and watch as all the different elements of the strike package converge on the target area, you will see other aircraft returning from their strikes or CAPs or sweeps, others heading out, and others busy engaging enemy ground or air units. You can also listen in on the radio to the various fights going on around you. While you fly over the front lines, you see the 3D version of what was going on in the 2D map: Units engaging each other or moving around, the aftermath of earlier battles, etc. Apologies to those who already know the campaign system that I described above, but I'm just trying to convey more or less how rich the system can be and the level of immersion you can get by just being one aircraft in a much, much bigger war. I have seen earlier mentions of an RTS system in the DCS dynamic campaign context, so perhaps what I describe for Falcon 4.0 is not so far off from what they are developing. I'm just hoping for a bit more info - therefore my previous request. I know there are some in the community who tend to consider any input from the designers as a "promise" that must be kept at all costs and who will jump up and down if those "promises" are not realized fast enough, but I would like to believe that the vast majority of us are more realistic in our expectations and understand that some things are "ready when they are ready". I'm just curious as to the approach (or approaches) being considered by ED in relation to their dynamic campaign engine.

I'm also interested in some official information about how the dynamic campaign will work and some of the main features that they have in mind - even if it is still a long way off. The Falcon 4.0 campaign system is one of its most outstanding features and I can only presume that ED would want to top that (even if ED's approach might have to be different because of the way DCS is designed). So far it has only been the odd remark in the official updates - I would love it if they could do an interview, longer discussion or perhaps dedicate one of the news updates to only talk about their vision for this feature.

I would definitely walk away from DCS if it changed to a subscription model, as I have done with several other types of software.

I'm a huge fan of Falcon 4.0, but it took a very long time to mature. Those early days were not fun: Completing a mission without a CTD was usually regarded as a miracle. Today with BMS the fidelity is great, and there is still something about its campaign engine that no one else has been able to replicate. I'm holding thumbs for the future DCS dynamic campaign engine. I enjoyed EF2000 also - it seemed to have "atmosphere" that the other ones lacked. Maybe it was the in-game music, maybe the Scandinavian setting, but something about it really kept me engaged. I must admit that I missed out a little on Total Air War: It came out about the same time as Falcon 4.0 and at that stage I was investing too much time on Falcon.

I'm sure it was posted in jest, but that was a very cool simulator at the time. Developed by Eagle Dynamics, it is what kicked off this whole journey that brought us to DCS today. It was released about 4 years after Falcon 3.0 came out, and 3 years before Falcon 4.0 came out - so about right in the middle between those two state of the art simulators. I remember what was particularly impressive for me was how smooth and well everything worked. Two takeaways from those days for me: 1) It would be nice to have a full fidelity module for the Su-27 (even if it is for an early version) to finish what the 1995 game started. 2) I wish we could get the rest of Crimea added to the Caucasus map. I have read the many arguments around that topic, but I'm still convinced it would be a great addition.

Excellent! I was unaware that it was adjustable in the game, and it did sort out the problem. I'm still a bit skeptical of the big difference between HUD day vs night mode brightness, but it is not a big deal. Good stuff. Thanks!

I searched for this issue and didn't see it mentioned anywhere else. I'm not sure if it is a bug per se, but let's just say the NVGs don't work the way I expect them to. I should add that I am not unfamiliar with real-world NVG's. I spent a large part of my career in flight test (as a flight dynamics / performance / FBW / handling specialist), but I happen to have done a number of NVG cockpit evaluations as part of my flight test training. Screenshots below were made in the latest Open Beta version (2.5.6.47404), but I noticed the issue the first time when I initially upgraded to 2.5.6. There are two issues that bug me. The first is that when the HUD is in night mode, the NVGs are unusable since the HUD causes a total white-out of the forward view: Setting the HUD to day mode, strangely enough partially alleviates the problem: However, there are still issues, even when I use the HUD in day mode: The very bright area on the bottom left is due to the left MFD being in TAD mode. The issue disappears if you set it to another page that is less bright, such as the DSMS page. However, when in TAD, there is nothing you can do to reduce the bright area in the NVG: MFD day makes it worse, changing contrast and/or brightness help with readability of the MFD without NVG, but it does nothing to remove the bright spot when NVGs are used. I'm posing this as a question rather than a bug report. Maybe some of the issues are intentional to simulate the limitations of NVGs, which I am well aware of (see my first paragraph). However, in particular the fact that putting the HUD in night mode makes things worse than day mode does not appear like correct behaviour to me. I have no experience with real world NVGs in the A-10C specifically, so cannot state for sure that the behaviour is wrong - it would be wrong for other military aircraft that I am familiar with, however.

It is very difficult for me to see any way in which I would ever put down money for a fictitious map. In fact, even if it is made available as a free map, I probably wouldn't download it. It is pretty clear that we all have different tolerances on what we will and won't accept in a simulator. I'm an aeronautical engineer, so there are a lot of little details (especially in the physics modelling) that I notice that others possibly miss. On the other hand, I'm not too concerned about certain graphical or sound aspects that may be critical for immersion for other players. However, that being said, I always thought that the distinction in being a simulator is that you at least strive towards accuracy. You play out imaginary missions and wars, but in a setting that is as close as possible to the real world. We make compromises sometimes - for example, before the Persian Gulf map, Nevada was often used to simulate the Middle East. We also sometimes use versions of aircraft that may not quite be historically accurate for the map/period that we are trying to model. But I always saw these things as temporary solutions to play out scenarios until the necessary assets/terrains/aircraft become available - accepting that with limited resources we can't have everything immediately. However, to put in effort to create a map that is deliberately fictitious, seems like a waste of resources, which are clearly already in short supply. There are so many real world areas that I would like to see in DCS: Vietnam, Korea, the area covered by the 1991 Gulf War, the Balkans - that I would be dismayed to see resources being spent on creating a fictitious map.

Make sure the ADI steering bars are not stowed. I think (at least in 2.5.6 Open Beta), the default for a cold start is "stowed". It is on the Navigation Mode Select Panel on the central dash, just to the left of the EGI button. From the manual: 10. Pitch and Roll Bar Switch. The switch labeled PTR enables you to display or stow the pitch and roll steering bars on the ADI and the course warning flag. Setting this switch to ABLE enables them to be shown and setting the switch to STOW disables them unless TISL or FM homing are active.

Although I'm an engineer by profession, I also have a pilot's license and as such I have had the opportunity to fly chase aircraft during flight testing (real world). I haven't done it behind a WWII fighter, but I have done it behind turboprop aircraft (military trainer types). Because you are often asked to change position for observation purposes, from time to time it happens that you misjudge it and end up going through the wake and/or prop wash. These turboprop military trainers are not too far from the mass and power of a typical WWII fighter, so it should give at least a representative idea of the relative effects. Crossing through the wing wake in real world is surprisingly violent, even for these relatively light aircraft: If it catches you unawares it will easily bank you through 30 to 45deg. In addition, the actual turbulence combined with the prop wash will shake you pretty violently. I guess I can describe it a bit like when you are driving on a smooth tarmac road and suddenly go onto a stretch of rough dirt road while simultaneously hitting a pothole. You really have to experience it to appreciate it. I'm making no claim about the accuracy of DCS, as I have not tested this in detail. But from what I have seen the magnitude of the effect does not appear to be too far off.

Vympel (Russian manufacturer) gives the ET mass as 343 kg, the EP as 346 kg and ER as 350 kg. Artem (Ukrainian manufacturer) gives exactly the same masses.

Kolga, I'm not sure I agree completely with you, but of course it depends on the type of missile and it also depends on whether the target is already at 9g or needs to build up from 1 to 9g. That particular scenario is one where most modern missiles should do pretty well - especially the ones that also use thrust vectoring. Let's say your scenario starts out like the one example that I described in my last post (target basically at 1g). This is what I wrote: "For example, a given modern missile launched directly from behind on a non-maneuvering target would require no maneuvering at all, which usually reduces the CEP for that geometry to less than 1m in smooth air." Now, if the target maneuvers at 9g from there and we assume it is a very maneuverable target flying at a speed where he is capable of a high g onset rate and therefore can get to 9g quickly, something like an AIM-9X or IRIS-T would probably still be able to follow. However, and this is maybe what you were getting at, the CEP for the changing geometry will get bigger so the missile's accuracy would degrade as it tries to follow the target. It is therefore possible the missile might miss, but since it would still be able to get to the target kinematically (it has the energy and the maneuvering capability), if it misses it will most likely be a very close miss and the proximity fuse will still take care of things. You will note I use a lot of words like "probable" or "possible" - it really depends on so many things that every statement you make usually needs to be qualified. Even if pretty much everything is known about the target and missile and launch geometry, we still end up with dealing with things like CEP, which is a statistical measure. The problem is never really completely deterministic. Throw in external inputs like turbulence and gusts and suddenly your accuracy and repeatability goes down even if everything else stays the same. This is why I disagree with so many of Emu's definitive statements.

OK, I'll give it to you that you are right and that, specifically, the first part of my post did not deal with a launch inside the kinematically feasible envelope. However, I should point out there is a big difference in the reason why it cannot hit the target between what I described in the first part of my post and your 500 mile example: When 500 miles away it doesn't have the energy to reach the target. What I described was a maneuvering limitation, not an energy limitation. Trying to make such a turn will also eat up energy but the reason the turn cannot be made is due to additional factors, such as maximum achievable normal force (usually a function of the missile shape, its wings and other lift producing surfaces such as strakes), its ability to produce a pitching moment (control surfaces and thrust vectoring) and of course the ability of the tracking head to maintain the target within its field of view throughout the maneuver. In my example, the missile would attempt the turn, miss the target, but still have enough energy left to continue flying for a significant distance after it missed the target. I completely disagree with your "case" as you put it: If the missile is tracking and the launch was in parameters it definitely does not guarantee a hit. How can you even claim that? Missile engagement envelopes (I'm not talking about what is shown in the aircraft system - I mean the detailed envelopes usually carefully defined during development via a combination of testing and Monte Carlo analysis) look different for a non-maneuvering target than for a maneuvering target. The target may initially not be maneuvering, placing it well inside the non-maneuvering target envelope when the missile is fired. However, if the target maneuvers after launch, the envelope changes and then the missile may or may not hit the target. It can miss because it doesn't have the energy to get to the target once the target starts maneuvering, it can miss because the missile cannot generate enough load factor to make the turn even though it has more than enough energy to keep going long after it passed the target, or it can miss due to the inherent accuracy of the missile in that particular set of conditions. This last point deals with the second part of my original post and which was the part I wanted you to read again. There I talked about the finite CEP's INSIDE the kinematically feasible launch envelope. The graphs that show those variations, which you must have seen before if you have worked with real world missile testing, imply that no missile has perfect accuracy. Typically, the more it has to maneuver the less accurate it becomes and the larger the CEP. When launched inside the kinematically feasible launch envelope the missile by definition has both the energy and the maneuvering ability to hit the target, but it never has perfect accuracy and a number of factors cause that accuracy to degrade. For example, a given modern missile launched directly from behind on a non-maneuvering target would require no maneuvering at all, which usually reduces the CEP for that geometry to less than 1m in smooth air. That is about as close to perfect accuracy as you will get, but it still will not hit exactly on the desired point of impact (DPI) every time. And although it may have that small a CEP for that simplest of geometries, even the most modern and maneuverable missiles can have CEPs with a radius larger than the principle dimensions of the target when they are expected to maneuver significantly, implying that it can very well miss the target even though it is fully capable of both tracking it and reaching it kinematically, which of course is the reason why they are fitted with proximity fuses. The AIM-9X in that video had to maneuver significantly in order to hit the target, so it definitely was not the optimal launch trajectory by any means. That it hit the target was impressive, but there is no reason to believe it hit the target exactly on the DPI. If it did, it would have been a fluke. And as a postscript, I am well aware that not all manufacturers use CEP or only CEP to define accuracy: Mean miss distances, mean radial error (MRE), individually stated range error probable (REP) and deflection error probable (DEP), range and deflection bias and various other measures that statistically describe the accuracy of the weapon relative to the DPI are used. The point is that a missile is yet to be constructed that will hit the center of the target or whatever might define the DPI perfectly every time, even when the conditions are optimal.

I said no such thing. Read my post again.

If I read you correctly, you are claiming that if a missile needs to turn through a very small radius while at speed (i.e. it has not run out of energy - maybe the motor is still even burning), it will be able to make that turn regardless of the radius? So, let's say for example we have a missile that was launched just prior to a head-on cross so it leaves the rail at 300 m/s (Mach 1) and has to complete a 180 degrees, let's say 100 m radius turn to track the target. This equates to a centripetal acceleration requirement of 900 m/s^2 or about 92g, which has to be maintained for a full 180 degrees. You are claiming that this is not really a problem and not only will the missile make the turn, but it will also hit the target dead centre? How about a smaller radius (50m, for example) or tracking a maneuvering target once the missile is up to its maximum speed (let's say 700+ m/s depending on what kind of missile we are talking about)? Are you saying there is no physical limit, or just that it is negligible? From what you wrote, you also appear to suggest that modern missiles: a) have a 100% Pk for any shot taken within range, regardless of relative aspect on launch (of course, assuming it is guiding and no failure occurs) and b) Not only is the Pk 100%, but it will hit exactly where it is intended to. In other words, you are saying it will have a zero miss distance, implying both the guidance error and the navigation error will always be exactly zero at impact, resulting in a mean miss distance of zero with a CEP (or MRE or whichever statistical accuracy metric you prefer) also of zero or, at least, an extremely small number. So, all those graphs you have seen over the years (you claim you worked on Meteor) showing different CEP values based on relative launch aircraft and target aspects through the launch envelope can now be dispensed with. In fact, based on what you wrote, the CEP values for the areas inside the kinematically feasible launch envelope should not only reduce to zero or very close to zero, but you also appear to suggest that the boundary of those graphs that are usually specifically defined by the manoeuvering capability of the missile can also be removed? Or, maybe what you wrote is not really what you meant?