toilet2000

@NineLine look at the used cores in MT VR vs MT 2D. Almost everything is on the E-core (last 4 cores on a 12700). Clearly a bug, as DCS seems to online spawn threads as if only the E-cores are present in VR. See:

I'm having the same issue. 12700KF, DCS uses a single thread on P-cores and maxes out E-cores (90+%). Seems like in VR DCS only launches threads as if it was on E-cores only.

Since the latest update, no cockpit labels (tooltips) are rendered in VR. The option is ticked in the Options menu. Am I the only one?

Hi, could I also get a PM? Thanks!

I’m interested as well if possible to ship to Canada. Thanks!

More effective? Yes. Effective? No. Everything with regards to operations can be done in the front seat (only a couple of switches must be turned on in the back seat). What a good human WSO will do is multiply the SA, decrease the chances of loosing it, split A2A vs A2G tasks, allow for NoE flying while targeting and interpreting the patch maps. But at the end of the day in DCS, it should be perfectly functional without a human WSO.

There is literally no way what you just said is true. Coast mode is not some super advanced stuff at all. It’s very similar to TWS in terms of processing requirements so I don’t see how it wouldn’t be available on one of the most proliferated and upgraded 4th gen fighter. Coast mode for AGR FTT is even implemented in DCS, as can be seen in the manual.

The "work as part of a team" is very true... In real life. In DCS, most fly SP and very rarely get to experience proper teamwork that makes use of comms and especially advanced datalinks, even in MP in public servers. As such, the FCR makes for a much more interesting sensor in the ecosystem of DCS, because: - By itself it can populate targets as would be received from the Longbow network. - It will most likely work much more reliably w.r.t. its real world counterpart due to sensor limits and noise being rarely modeled in DCS. - It allows for faster and easier targeting in "all-out warfare" scenarios, which hasn't really been the case in the real world since the introduction of the FCR (hence the general opinion in army aviation about it not being that useful). - It allows targeting without visual IFF, which would be a big no-no in most cases IRL. - It allows for multi-targeting/multiple launches using the AGM-114L, which again AFAIK was mostly a marketing thing and not used much IRL due to the limited use of such a tactic in past conflicts. So at the end of the day, I can 100% understand the hype in DCS for the FCR, since it's a tool that is especially well fitting to DCS' typical scenarios. Personally, I'm looking forward to the RFI above both the FCR and Longbow Net, with the FCR right after. Longbow Net is very cool and powerful, but will be of generally limited use in 80% of my DCS time.

Patches are almost never released during the weekend, only emergency hotfixes have been released during the weekend. Generally, they are planned for Wednesdays, being pushed to Thursday or Friday if issues arise during the pre-release tests. Other than that, the patch date can be seen on this thread when it is publicly announced: Most likely we'll see a patch by the end of January, but it is not confirmed. We just generally get one "bigger" patch a month.

Indeed, this option works decently (very similar to other MITL weapons in-game). Thanks for the headsup. Although the Traction option is completely broken currently, which wasn't the case before. This doesn't work as as soon as the threshold is passed, the cursor speed value is not 0, it is set as about half the maximum speed. So it would go from 0 speed to half max speed instantly.

Bump, This makes the CM-802AKG completely unusable, since it's basically impossible to aim. Tried generating a track, but I think my DCS is configured to not output tracks for performance reason. I will try to fix that, but it is very easy to reproduce, simply bind the TDC to an axis and send a CM-802AKG, then immediately take control of it.

As BU means Back Up, it is a backup page for the UFC, useful when there's a fault or issue with the UFC. By its very definition, it should not add anything in terms of functionality to the UFC.

When using a TDC with axis, the MITL CM-802AKG is basically uncontrollable, especially in narrow FOV mode. There is a VERY large deadzone that cannot be removed through the special options menu.

Awesome build! I was looking at making one. What joystick module did you use for the thumb controllers? Most joystick modules I see are too big to fit. Thanks!

Do you have source on that? AFAIK, the AZ/EL page is Azimuth vs Elevation (both angles), not Azimuth vs Altitude.

Should the AZ/EL page be in terms of azimuth and elevation, as in the vertical angle, not altitude at X range? Don't have the docs close to me and I could be wrong, but given the name of the page it seems logical that both axis should be angles and not the horizontal axis being an angle (azimuth) and the vertical axis being a distance (altitude at X range).

I have to say, this is very much appreciated as a response to this thread. Makes it clear as to why it is not implemented and is totally understandable. Thanks!

As Fredef said, there are modes (not implemented) for LARs, but assuming that because a dumb bomb can be tossed at a certain range a similar logic applies to a guided munition is very wrong. Control surfaces makes the bomb not follow a ballistic trajectory, and every correction has an impact on drag which slows down the bomb and waste energy. Definitely not as simple as an unguided munition.

A1-FA18C-742-100 011 03 p.4 paragraph 19 contradicts your point.

Both modules have been demonstrated as behaving very unrealistically by SMEs. What you find "messed up" has nothing to do with realistic behaviors. To the contrary, the modules that you find best are those that do not behave like proper helis. Examples:

Oh I agree with not rushing it. I apologize if my comments could be interpreted this way. My goal was simply to point to the correct information. I agree that rushing it is a bad idea, both because as you said what is shared by users and such can be wrong, but also because ED's quick interpretation can be wrong too. Take your time, I think I do not only speak for myself when I say that as long as "it's getting there someday", I'll be here backing ED. I think most people that are passionate can be patient if it means getting the correct implementation some days. As long as we get the "we're aware and will be/are working on it" from ED, I am personally satisfied. Anyway, I'll stop derailing the topic.

I had a talk with Razbam's and their radar SME (which I assume is Galinette) told me through their CM that while the Doppler shift is great, the return in itself is pretty small. The radar does not only need a proper Doppler shift, but also a proper signal-to-noise ratio, which the very small heli blades do not provide according to the SME. So even though the signature is recognizable, the range at which it has a signal significant enough to be detected is quite low. I myself don't have any experience in that regard, but I was curious and asked around. Just a thing to consider.

As far as I'm aware, you were shown proper documentation (ie that Google Docs) for most of the claims in this thread, but otherwise feel free to browse the following documents (no links, no files, just names): A1-F18AC-FRM-000 A1-F18AC-742-100 A1-F18AC-746-100 If I missed something or I'm unaware of anything about it, please feel free to correct me. Thanks.

While I wouldn't say that it is "completely broken", there are a lot of areas where it is not accurate. Unfortunately, the available documentation is often refused by ED. I can understand that if you have "insider knowledge" of ED's simulation of the APG-73 radar, you might have a good idea of if it is accurate or not according to the developpers, but we don't have access to that information and unfortunately we never got (so far) the radar whitepaper that was discussed some months ago. As such, we have to assume from what we have as users: the available real documentation and the end product we currently use in DCS. Comparing one with the other highlights some significant discrepancies. Some examples: - Jammer/Radar Priority - Waveform selection (should be able to make an STT track appear as if it is guiding an AIM-7 even if it is not) - PVU - Velocity Search - Terrain Avoidance - RWS horizontal slewing - Integration of sources with MSI and the radar, including having a L&S track without radar, getting range source from MSI on an AOT radar track, etc. - Proper trackfile death model that does not rely on the display-only brick age-out setting. Again, I do not condone hyperbolas such as "completely broken", but I personally believe that more than "a few areas to tune" is left to be done on the APG-73 to be "mostly accurate". Hopefully these will be covered and implemented at some point.

You're comparing a Mirage 2000-5 or 2000D, not the same at all. The Mirage 2000C is actually a nowadays very outdated 4th gen. It's definitely better than the F1 (a 3rd gen), but it does not get a radar "as good as it gets" other than AESA. It's actually a very limited (for a 4th gen) radar. The RDI has a mix of analog and digital radar scope, with only a single target TWS mode (PSID, poursuite sur information discontinue, or a pseudo-TWS with a single target tracked while scanning for hits). The Cyrano IV of the F1 actually has a similar mode, yet much more rudimentary. It has limited target filtering with a lot of false contacts. Its AG radar modes are very similar to the Cyrano IV of the Mirage F1, albeit with a AG ranging mode (which the F1M with the Cyrano IVM will get). But to be noted, the RDI is a Pulse Doppler radar whereas the Cyrano IV is a Pulse and MTI radar. It also does not "carry most, if not all, of the precision weapon in the Western arsenal", only LGBs which it doesn't have any onboard designation (or even search and track) sensors. It has a basic CCRP/CCIP/CCRP-VP bombing computer for unguided munitions (rockets, GP bombs both in LD and HD, cannons, cluster bombs and anti-runway Durandals). Its AG weaponry is very similar to the F1 actually, but with the more modern touch of having CCIP/CCRP. For the AA weaponry, it's also very similar, with Magic 2s and Super 530D (much, much better missile than the EM R530). Other than that, it gets an INS (non-GPS), a much superior RWR and Jammer suite and allows for installation of the D2M rear-facing missile warning system, although it was not mounted IRL and those were kept for the 2000Ds. It's also a delta wing and has a full FBW, giving it very good maneuverability. Otherwise, the upcoming F1M will most likely be very similar in capabilities and weaponry (with the 530F instead of the PD guided 530D), albeit with less maneuverability and a worse engine.