S

Hello Everyone, I'm working on some custom liveries for the Strike Eagle and I'm having some trouble with the airbrake. No matter what I try, it insists on giving the airbrake the 'clean' look and won't let me paint on it. Everything else I've edited in the E02 file shows up perfectly. Thanks in advance for any help!

Wondering if they just swapped the SNIPER pod to the LITENING spot (top) with the changes they're making?

This is kinda what I was getting at when I asked if they plan to wait until SNIPER is implemented to remove LITENING. I'll definitely be upset if they take away capabilities (as realistic or not as that may be) after giving us the LITENING and telling us for so long that it was correct and they had data from SMEs, etc. I'm really concerned that they kept telling us for so long that the community was wrong because they had SMEs and manuals that we don't and then they all of a sudden completely change tact and say they don't have enough data to say the implementation of LITENING is right. So what were they looking at all that time? Why were their SMEs telling them it was correct? Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with more choices, but don't limit what I can do with my jet in the mean time over concerns about 'realism' when you messed it up so much in the first place. It's not like we're getting something the jet can't actually do - just some of the pages aren't quite right (potentially), right? Also, why were they fine with having the F-16 not able to utilize the KNOWN 9G capabilities for so long, especially since people have been complaining about that for a while?

Thanks for the answers, Wags. Your answers brought up a couple more questions. I know you don't have a timeline for the change, but have there been any discussions about dropping the LITENING when the SNIPER is available, or is that completely in the air? I think you may have missed my question in #3 - knowing that at least one major part of the jet (LITENING) was wrong, and the SMEs said it was right, shouldn't ED go back over everything and make sure it's right instead of relying on the community to 'prove' things are wrong? My original question wasn't restricted to the FM/FLCS - I just brought that up because we've been having issues with the jet's performance envelope likely tied to G-effects on the pilot. Also, just to make sure everyone was aware, I made this post as a standalone thread because I didn't want to go off-topic. A moderator merged the thread with this one, which is rather inconvenient.

With Wags making a post in the thread regarding LITENING vs LANTIRN and saying LITENING is definitely being removed, I have a few questions about the way this is going to shake out. Here's the post for reference: Everyone currently flying the Viper is familiar with the way the LITENING TGP is currently implemented, and losing the TV part will definitely be a pain point - especially for those of us running VR systems where things are already hard to see (yes, I have a low-end VR set...). So, here are my questions: In light of ED giving us the LITENING TGP for so long and letting us get used to using it 'operationally', will you guys consider waiting to make the change until we have the SNIPER pod? Is putting the LANTIRN pod on the Viper going to take development resources away from the SNIPER pod? I saw a lot of posts in the thread Wags posted in from ED people saying that the data you guys have and the SMEs all said LITENING was correct - in light of your SMEs (who were referenced as real-world Viper pilots) being so terribly wrong about this, are you guys going to go over the Viper with a fine-tooth comb and make sure all of your flight model data, etc is correct as well?

I thought the post I was replying to mentioned multiple points - re-reading it I was wrong. Yeah, this would work and is more likely for what was described.

I built myself a calculator app, so don't mind me.

I would assume this is what he's describing (poorly) in the book. My reason for believing this would be what he's talking about is that the true ILS avionics in the aircraft take input from stationary ground stations and move the needles depending on how the radio signal is reaching the jet's antennae. There's no ground stations to interact with the markpoint, so you wouldn't be able to use the actual ILS system with a markpoint. That being said, most AP systems (at least in the civilian side) show the magenta lines (which could roughly equate with the needles in the Viper) based on GPS or other data but they're normally called 'flight directors'. They visually do the same thing, but the computations aren't based on a glideslope and lateral localizer. If I were to try to do this in DCS (with what we have now) I would go the route of dropping the markpoint then overflying the runway on opposite heading and drop a point 10NM away from the runway end. Add an elevation of +3183 AGL (at end of runway) to this steerpoint and you have a 3-degree descent from that point to the runway. You wouldn't get the needles as we don't have non-ILS FD in the Viper, but you could fly to the 10NM markpoint and switch over to the runway point and fly an AoA approach that way.

Hey creme_fraiche, This is because DCS (by default) doesn't want you to slot in with, say, 15 seconds to go with a ToS that would require you to have maybe a 10 minute flight to get to the STPT. If you look closely, when you have a desired ToS set in the ME, it will automatically assign a speed between waypoints to get you there 'on time'. Since it back-calculates from STPT 1 (first waypoint) to STPT 0 (starting location), STPT 2 back to STPT 1, etc it's actually using the speed required between the two points to calculate duration to hit the STPT on-time. If you want to have specific times on target independent of the duration, the best way to do it is create a kneeboard showing the ToS for each STPT and leaving it up to the pilots to calculate airspeeds, fuel burns, etc. This generally works best when you create a mission that has plenty of time for everyone to reach a hold point and then give push times for each flight moving into an AO. If you're working with AI, you can set them to hold at a given point (figure out when they'll get there) for a duration and they'll fly a holding orbit between that point and the next (so you'll need to set up 2 waypoints) until the 'push time' arrives, and then they'll move out to do what you want them to do.

Do you mean over G the Viper? I don't want to assume you're talking gibberish here. My point wasn't about over-G'ing the airplane, btw. It was about the jet being able to accelerate (gain speed) when it's pulling 4+ G. I don't have the charts, and wouldn't want to pull a WT if I did, so that's not happening. Like I said in my first post in this thread - it's anecdotal based on C.W. Lemoine talking about the DCS Viper compared to his recollection of the real-world Viper.

{cockpit_device_id = devices.ECM_INTERFACE, down = ecm_commands.ThreeBtn, up = ecm_commands.ThreeBtn, value_down = 0, value_up = 1, name = _('ECM 3 Button - Released else Depressed (2-way Switch)'), category = {_('ECM Pod Control Panel'), _('Custom')}}, {cockpit_device_id = devices.ECM_INTERFACE, down = ecm_commands.ThreeBtn, up = ecm_commands.ThreeBtn, value_down = 1, value_up = 0, name = _('ECM 3 Button - Depressed else Released (2-way Switch)'), category = {_('ECM Pod Control Panel'), _('Custom')}}, That's essentially how it's done. It will add items in 'Custom for Joystick' in the dropdown for your aircraft. The 'Released else Depressed' functionality essentially makes it so the desired switch is on a 'hold' of the control so the (stupidly wired) 3-way switches on the Warthog have a 'middle' position set to 'do nothing'. I'm probably explaining this terribly, but it's like if you had to hold a key on your keyboard to keep the switch in the position you want it. The middle position on the 3-way switches on the Warthog are 'no input' so it's like you lifted a key on your keyboard. The same is true for the 2-way switches (two on the bottom left) - they only have one wired input (up position) so you have to make that into a 'hold key' function and then putting it in the down releases the key as there's no longer an input. I personally mapped my two 2-ways on the bottom to the tank depressurization for refueling and the refueling door. The 3-way on the bottom is my alt/att AP switch.

G modeling is not fine. Watch any of the former F-16 pilots on YouTube talk about 9G in dogfights and how that is a defining advantage of the Viper against other planes. Anything over 7-7.5G for more than 5 seconds and you black out in DCS. Hasard Lee just put out a short the other day talking about pulling 9G and having some burst blood vessels in his arm from doing it. He didn't experience GLOC. Also, C.W. Lemoine talks about how the Viper in DCS doesn't have the acceleration during 4+ G maneuvering that the real Viper has. IIRC he mentioned accelerating all the way up to 7G with full blower. Go over 4G in a horizontal turn in the DCS Viper and you're definitely losing energy, not accelerating.

I don't fly the bug, but it could be related to the mouse 'sticking' on the last knob you turn. This has been an issue for me with some of the knobs/switches on the Viper. Essentially, the mouse will stay 'stuck' to the last thing you clicked/scrolled on and then when you move the mouse it adjusts the 'sticky' function. The way I found to make sure that doesn't happen is to do what I need to do, then click somewhere in the sky. Try that and let us know if it helps!

In the US civil sector, landing light on takeoff. I haven't paid attention to the lights on Vipers flying out of jobsites (Andrews, McEntyre (sp?)) so couldn't give you an answer on that, but I'd assume it's probably the same outside of combat zones.

Hello All, I'm interested in doing some terrain development for DCS and wondering what's the best way to get started. I have a couple specific questions: How does one gain access to the DCS Terrain Development Kit (TDK)? If I have LiDAR data, can I compile this data in Unreal Engine and export to the TDK with additional buildings, trees, etc developed in 3ds Max, Speedtree, etc into the TDK? Does anyone have information on becoming a 3rd party developer and selling via the ED shop? I know this is a pretty big operation to get started, but it's something I'd like to do to push my game development skills and potentially make something useful. Up to now, I've done some level design for other games, and I've done a lot of work with LiDAR data for city planning, archviz, and construction visualizations and would like to try to combine those things into some cool terrains for my favorite digital hobby. I'm not promising anything here. I just want to get my feet wet and see if it's something I'll pursue further.