broderbund67

What’s your opinion on the vortices topic?

Nothing wrong with that, you should try it. Agreed I was just trying to explain that they cannot look the same for every airframe. I would be good with a very simplified version. The same way we have custom effects for the lex vapors on the F-16, F-18. Harrier...

They don’t look the same in real life because the flow structures themselves aren’t the same. What you see (length, thickness, “ropey” texture, breakup) is set by how each airframe generates and distributes lift and where the shear layers roll up into vortices. Why appearance differs by aircraft Lift distribution → tip roll-up strength. Vortex strength scales with local circulation Γ (Kutta–Joukowski). Airframes with more outboard loading (planform, washout, control-law scheduling) produce stronger, tighter tip vortices that persist longer and condense at lower ambient humidity. Planform & aspect ratio. Lower-AR, thicker, highly loaded wings (e.g., F-35) tend to form denser, longer-lived tip filaments; higher-AR wings with more even spanwise loading (e.g., F-15) generally yield broader, faster-breaking vortices under the same AoA/Nz. Leading-edge devices/LEX & chines. Jets with strong LEX/chines (F/A-18, F-35) generate leading-edge vortices (LEV) that interact with or overshadow tip vortices, changing the visible pattern (sheets, “fog banks,” twin ropes) versus a pure tip-only signature (typical F-15 in many regimes). Tip geometry & twist. Tip shape (raked/squared), dihedral, and washout alter the core radius and breakdown distance; that’s why some aircraft show thin, coherent “wires” far aft, while others show short, puffy trails that break down early. Compressibility & regime. At transonic/high-q, shocks and accelerated cores drop static pressure further, so condensation onset and thickness vary with Mach and control-surface schedule—again, airframe dependent. Persistence/visual thickness. Core pressure deficit and axial velocity set condensation envelope and entrainment rate. Strong, tight cores look like thick cylinders in humid air and remain visible well aft; weaker cores look skinny and dissipate sooner. Concrete contrasts (same weather, comparable AoA/Nz) F-35: Lower AR, high wing loading, chines/LEV interaction → longer, denser, more persistent wingtip filaments; visible even in relatively dry conditions. F-15: Higher AR, more even spanwise loading, significant washout → tip vortices appear but break down sooner; less frequent long “cables” unless humidity/AoA are high. F/A-18: Often dominated by LEX/leading-edge vortices and canopy/forebody mist; wingtip trails are not the primary visual. So the statement “there is zero visual difference” conflates a global humidity/AoA trigger with airframe-specific vortex morphology (core size, breakdown length, dominance of LEV vs tip, etc.). The physics guarantee different looks across types, and that’s exactly what photos and demo flights show. Implication for DCS A global effect tied only to AoA/Nz will miss these differences. Expose per-module parameters (e.g., reference W/S, AR, washout, outboard-loading coefficient, tip-geometry factor, LEX/LEV weighting, breakdown-length scale) and drive: Onset threshold (humidity × core Δp), Core radius / visual thickness, Persistence / breakdown distance, LEV vs tip contribution by regime. That would capture why F-35 trails look longer/denser, F-15 trails shorter/softer, and F/A-18 shows strong LEV structures even when tip trails are modest.

Of course, it's just a detail but for me it's very characteristic of this plane. Applying the same effect to all aircrafts in DCS is inaccurate because it does not occur at the same frequency and it looks different depending on wing design. Here are some direct comparisons below. F-35 in formation with an f-16 at the end of the video. No vortices for the F-16 F-22 in formation with the f-35, not trail on the F-22: F-22, A-10, F-15 and F-35 in formation:

Yes, in humid conditions the F-15 will often show vortices, but the F-35 is notable because you can sometimes see them even in dry environments, like desert airshows, where other jets wouldn’t produce visible trails. I’m not saying the F-35 is “special” in that sense, but its vortices do appear more frequently and tend to last longer. That comes down to wing geometry and loading, combined with weather conditions. For the same humidity, the F-35’s vortices are generally more visible. F-15: Strong, but short-lived wingtip trails. F-35: More persistent, longer trails due to wing loading and geometry. F/A-18: Heavy vapor overall, but mainly from leading-edge and body vortices rather than wingtips.

Yes, that’s correct, but the intensity and persistence of vortex formation vary significantly between aircraft types. For example, at an airshow I observed the F-35 generating pronounced, sustained wingtip vortex trails, whereas the F-16 produced little to none under the same atmospheric conditions. Extended vortices on the F-16, such as in your first picture, are relatively uncommon. This comes down to aerodynamic factors—specifically wing planform, aspect ratio, and overall lift distribution—which determine how much and how consistently a wing generates vortical flow. The F-35 has a relatively thick, broad wing with a moderate aspect ratio and significant lift loading, which promotes strong pressure differentials at the tips. That makes vortex generation more pronounced compared to sleeker, higher-aspect ratio designs like the F-16

Just as some modules get their own custom wing vapor effects when pulling G’s, the F-35 should also have a dedicated effect for its wingtip vortex vapor rather than using the generic default. The current effect applied to all aircrafts is too short and fades too quickly, whereas the real F-35 often leaves a distinct, somewhat persistent trail in certain flight regimes.

Quite disappointed not to see any airfield in France. I was really looking forward to it.

This was not present before, you didn't have this light change. You can actually see the landscape go from overexposed to normal when you use VR zoom and less of the cockpit fills the screen. When you fly planes with very dark cockpit it is even worse. I think they are metering the light accross the whole screen and auto-adjusting the outside brightess but it is not working. It is also not realistic to the human eye dynamic range.

Auto exposure is so bad in VR, it often make the landscape washed out in some cockpits. I hope there would be an option to completely disable it.

The Mig-29 often produces long, thick vortices at the wingtips. It would be cool to have a custom effect for this plane rather than the short one used on all other planes.

I think the sun blinding effect is also too strong especially in VR. This should be more like this:

The AAR disconnect test is currently missing. This is part of the Startup Checklist. It would be nice to have it: - On the ground open the air refuel door-> RDY light on (we already have that) - Press A/R DISC button on Hotas -> DISC light on, RDY light off; 3 seconds later, RDY light on, DISC light off.

How bright should the HUD be near the sun? I took this screenshot from the Blue's angel Youtube. You can read the HUD through the visor reflection. Minimum sun bloom

How to reproduce: - Go to AG - Select Gbu-24 - Go back to NAV - Waypont number and range is removed from the Hud GBU24 Bug.trk