Nightstorm

Sorry to hear about you issues. The files are set up to match the DCS game folder's folder and file structure. I would suggest using a Mod manager like OvGME. You can search the forums for it and how to use. However, if you're going to install manually, You could extract the files to location of your choice and them copy the folders to your DCS game folder. They will overwrite the existing files, and you should get a prompt to confirm that. If you don't get a prompt, you might have copied them to the wrong folder. For a manual install, to restore the original files, do a DCS repair.

3D Mark Port Royal. I'd recently upgraded from a 12900k/4090 to 14900k/5090 and I still had the results saved from when I was tuning the 5090. With no other changes, I just re-reran it after enabling it in the global profile and the score increased by 9%.

It's turned on in BIOS yes, but it was NOT turned on in the driver. I found it was EXACTLY what Jay said in the video. The only software interface to check it was GPU-Z and it reads the BIOS setting. So, I thought it was on all this time. The profile inspector for the global profile clearly had it disabled. I enabled it, ran a test and compared to the last one I'd run, and it was 9% faster. Earth shattering? No. Leaving performance on the table for no good reason? Yes.

I watched that yesterday and found it was indeed turned off on my system with a 5090. Turned it on and gained 9% performance with no other changes.

The anti-radiation missiles will only work in self-protect mode. That is, they will lock onto the nearest or strongest RADAR signal and attempt to hit it. You can't aim them or designate targets. I've found them to be effective against all modern SAM sites that are stationary. If you have a SAM launcher/radar that is moving, I suspect it would do it's best to hit it just like any other missile would. So, is it capable of SEAD, yes, but you don't have a lot of control over what it goes after.

If there's a conflict, it wouldn't be the avionics. Conflicts in mods usually result from CLASS ID conflicts in weapons declarations. Sometimes it would mean the first one declared is the one used, sometimes, it results in DCS just crashing at startup with nothing in the log. That's a BIG indicator that you have a mod conflict. The F22 Enhancement mod does include an A2AMissilesEU file and it's possible that some of those missiles might conflict with the Grippen. The solution is pretty simple, edit the weapons.lua and comment out that missile file so that it doesn't load, or do the same thing in the Grippen Mod. IF you want to have them both enabled at the same time. If the Class ID's ARE NOT THE SAME, they will not conflict. The instructions were updated to only copy the FM and BIN as everything else needed is included in the enhancement mod. I don't know for 100% if anything else conflicts with it or not. You would need to test with your personal mod configuration but it's likely that it's a weapons conflict as I stated in the above reply.

It would be nice to know. You wouldn't think that there would be that many. And a cheat sheet of them with descriptions and even cautions would be great. Of course, from a troubleshooting standpoint, from ED's perspective, guessing what an end user has in their autoexec could be an issue. "Step 1: Remove any autoexec if you have one". Still, the "We're stuck in a loop. ChatGPT is referencing us, and we're referencing it." made me laugh. The AI takeover may be a little further down the road than some fear.

bkg_load_signed_plugins = false - I can confirm that with this in the autoexec.cfg I'm not missing anything. I have many mods installed and I doubt those are signed plugins. I haven't had any issues with loading or exiting since adding that line. Whatever that did, it stopped the behavior where it was evidently loading a bunch of plugins every single time you started DCS. I can't speak to the accuracy of the Chatgpt description, only my observations.

This is using the F-15C avionics. It doesn't have an advanced radio. All available commands are in the controls and they're mostly limited to either the comms menu or a few commands to wingman, awacs or tanker.

Releases · grinnellidesigns/f-22a Dowload the f-22a.zip file. That's the current release under v2.1.0. The BIN folder is definitely there, and definitely needed since it's the binary that controls everything. EDIT: If you ARE downloading that, and the DLL is missing, maybe your AV nuked it? The BIN folder would still be there though one would think. null

I don't know for sure. However, the F15E, provided it was included in the early release that may never get finished, is a full fidelity module. The avionics in the Flaming Cliffs modules were simpler. I wouldn't be surprised if it had multiple gun site versions similar to the viper or maybe the hornet since it's a Boeing aircraft.

-------UPDATE 250615 Updated prox/warheads on missiles to be scaled and improve with generation. Type: Range: Warhead/Prox Radius: MAKO 280km 500 174B 240km 500 260B 240km 450 260A 240km 450 Meteor 240km 500 272A 200km 450 120E 200km 450 74B 200km 400 74A 200km 400 120D3 180km 400 120C8 160km 350 120C7 120km 300 200A 120km 300 MICA 120km 250 120C6 63km 250 These values are not realistic however, the prox fuse is only used if the missile doesn't make a direct impact. The current behavior of missiles is also unrealistic because they shouldn't be missing by meters because the seeker doesn't turn on as it should. This is a work around until the missile code is working properly. Updated textures for AIM-9 series, 120 series and 88 series with cleaner versions. Adjusted the position of the AIM-200A x2 racks in the main bay to prevent clipping.

-------UPDATE 250614 Updated the RWR Symbology mod with more additional aircraft and weapons. Adjusted Radar guided missiles proximity fuses and warheads to help correct the current missile behavior. Now, even if they miss the target they will often prox fuse and at least damage it if not destroy it.

Yea, that's part of the default avionics. And I had the same reaction when I found it. It does make strafing easier. For the longest time I was strafing using the air reticle.

-------UPDATE 250613 Updated the RWR Symbology mod with some additional aircraft from CurrentHill's collection. Added new smoke generators for station six, specifically black and gray, but other colors are in the smokegen.lua file and with some editing of the RGB value you can have any color you want.

Other than it being heavier with that loadout and stores on the wings there would be no difference. The extra drag and weight could understandably require you to pull back on the stick. I don't know what the exact auto-rotate parameters are as that's in the EFM, but it makes sense. TWS issues seem to be related to the same missile issues, I've seen what you described. Sometimes TWS works on multiple targets, sometimes they both go for the same one. Landing speed is 160-180 kts. To be honest, I'm still getting the hang of it myself with the new EFM. I've bent the gear a few times.

Thanks for the information. I think that was based on the old AIM-120D code from a couple of years ago, which I was told was not working any longer as it didn't have the schema or ammunition type entries. I will experiment. The Lofting thing, check for the line "Loft Factor =" Default is 4.5. From what I'm seeing, I don't know if not having the schema would be a solution, but it's worth looking at.

-------UPDATE 250611 Re-enabled stock missiles for testing purposes. The issues persist with stock missiles and Radar settings. The mod is not the cause. If you have another missile mod installed, you may see duplicate entries. You should be able to figure out what is what. Adjusted the system pages slightly to move gear and flaps status messages as I didn't want gear to be an "advisory" type message on that page.

I tested with stock RADAR and Radar range on the F22 with stock 120C. No modifications were made. The picture speaks for itself. RADAR guided missiles are broken right now. Sometimes they'll still hit. But, it's not the mod. It's the core missile code, at least for BLUEFOR missiles.

I'll do some testing with the stock missiles again to see if they're doing the same thing. The DLZ logic is coded for each missile based on its capabilities. From what I understand, in the screenshot above, even IF it was out of range, it should have thought it was in range based on that DLZ logic. For whatever reason, it said it wasn't. And the missile had plenty of energy to reach the target, its just like the seeker never turned on. It guides to within very close range of the target and flies on by it.

-------UPDATE 250610 Adjusted missile code for improved accuracy, experimenting with some of the code that used to help. Minor change to the check list page to indicate which list is being displayed. The odd behavior that I'm seeing and don't understand with missiles is when it's a rear aspect shot but you are well inside range. The DMZ shows in the no-escape range but the reticle will suddenly shrink down to a very small circle. The missile will generally miss, and it shouldn't. You can see that the target is in range, inside the DMZ but the maneuvering circle shrank to nothing. If anyone has any ideas....

I know that if the targets aspect changes, it can cause the missile to miss. Particularly if it's just in range. It was in range when you fired, but the target turned 180 and accelerated away, missile will not catch it. So, it's possible the ECM affects them post-launch.

I saw that missile, but don't know if there's a 3D model of it available.

I was working on some mods yesterday and in/out/in/out many times over the course of several hours. No issues. The fact that you don't even have to *think* about what's taking so long means it's not taking so long  It's back to normal with normal being its behavior on 2.9.14. I'm glad to be back on the current version and regained access to the Germany map.

Just looking for feedback on the missiles. I'm still trying to adjust them to see if there is ANYTHING we can do to make them more reliable. With the 2.9.16 issues resolved with the added line to autoexec.cfg See here: I've been doing more extensive testing using primarily the AIM-120E. Sometimes it's perfect, sometimes it misses by just a bit. It's hard to tell if it's chaff or not. I've had them work great to short, medium and long range and I've had them fail to connect. So, I don't know if we have a problem or not, and if we do, what if anything, we can do about it. What are your experiences and/or suggestions?