[F-15E Livery Editing]

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!

[Next "Big" Update?]

3 hours ago, AdrianL said:

See the roadmap. Items in blue are what are being worked on

 

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

[Targeting Pod Choice]

4 hours ago, bukizzzz said:

Dear Wags and ED,

I appreciate your commitment to realism.

However, when I paid the price for a full fidelity F16C bl. 50 dated to 2007, in your own description the module included a Litening II pod. In the case that you erase the modern pod and leave us with a 40 year old pod instead - I and many others in this thread and in the one NineLine rudely locked would like a refund. I'd much rather pay for a JF17 that is accurately modeled as a mashup of 3 different blocks than an F16 that promises modern equipment but delivers with 40 year old pods and functionality. At least the JF17 developers are honest about what they are selling for 79.99

 

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?

[Targeting Pod Choice]

9 hours ago, Wags said:

Dear Sir,

1. As mentioned, there is no time frame for this change. Given we have much higher priorities, it would not be anytime soon. We simply wanted to provide a heads up for all those noting TGP implementation discrepancies earlier.
2. No, not really.
3. When provided with sufficient evidence, we are always open to reconsider implementations. However, in the case of the FM/FLCS, such evidence has not been provided. Let’s keep on topic though, please.

Kind regards,

Wags

Thanks for the answers, Wags.

Your answers brought up a couple more questions.

1. 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?
2. 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.

[Targeting Pod Choice]

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:

Quote

Dear all,

If I might stick my nose in on this:

We hear you and understand why you wish to retain the currently modeled TGP However, for the following reason, we’ll later (no time frame) adjust it to be an accurate LANTIRN TGP.

• Due to some incorrectly labeled videos and bad SME feedback, we made an earlier mistake of believing our modeled TGP was a Litening. We were wrong. Despite some initial resistance by us, we eventually agreed with your feedback that we were in fact mostly simulating a LANTIRN TGP. In fact, you all did a great job finding images and references of Block 50s sporting LANTIRN. These partly made us reconsider our stance on this. Thank you.
• We are doing our very best to model a USAF F-16C Block 50 using 4.2+ OFP. We chose this specifically due to the availability of documentation that we can cite if needed (very important in these times of sensitive information being leaked and resulting investigations). All our available TGP data is limited to LANTIRN and Sniper ATP.
• Even if we could confidently verify Litening TGP for an OFP 4.2+ F-16C (not secondhand accountings), we have zero reference data for this TGP that we could cite. Anything we put into our simulation must have supporting evidence that we can point to.
• As mentioned earlier, we still plan to add Sniper ATP. We have good and citable reference data for this, unlike Litening.
• If at a later point we come across Litening TGP data for OFP 4.2+ or earlier that is complete and citable, we’ll most certainly consider it.

Kind regards,

Wags

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:

1. 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?
2. Is putting the LANTIRN pod on the Viper going to take development resources away from the SNIPER pod?
3. 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?

[Mark point as ILS]

On 4/10/2023 at 2:44 PM, Aquorys said:

You could just dial the HSI to the runway heading and use the indications on the HSI for lateral navigation. It also shows the distance from the steerpoint in NAV mode, so you can check your actual altitude vs. the altitude that you should be at when you pass 10 nm.

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.

[Mark point as ILS]

On 4/8/2023 at 3:18 PM, Chain_1 said:

To make it easier on yourself use 3000' at 10 mi (1 deg = 100 ft/mi) since math kills lift.  If you look into the 60:1 rule, there's a bunch of things you can mentally figure pretty easily if you round a bit, i.e. 1 NM = 6000' instead of 6076'.  It's all close enough.  Technique only.

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

[Mark point as ILS]

On 3/29/2023 at 6:35 AM, Moonshine said:

you have got a point.

interestingly and i think this is NOT modelled in DCS at its current state, is the quote about coupling the needles to get guidance to that (i assume OFLY) markpoint he set (as in, surely you cant make one with the hud and neither with the TGP or AG radar as you cant see a thing until he basically flew over the runway, so OFLY seems logical). might have to dig in some manuals

i believe the function we are looking for is called "command steering" (ILS Flight Director). the use of the Horizontal and Vertical Steering Bars is not only for an ILS approach but also for example used in LADD and CCRP loft according to some manual that should not be named in the forums. so having ILS on would provide guidance using the needles for course deviation on a CCRP loft for example. 

while "CMD STRG" is shown on the DED, it can currently not be activated/deactivated using MSEL (0). maybe one day it will be implemented

 

 

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.

[Waypoint TOS changes based on when a user slots (using "Fix Time" on waypoint)]

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.

[F16 Still Underperforming]

5 hours ago, GGTharos said:

I can overspeed the viper at any time, just need to be at the right speed.  Show it's wrong against the charts, then ED will take action.

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.

[Thrustmaster Warthog question]

		{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.

[F16 Still Underperforming]

4 hours ago, GGTharos said:

G modeling is fine; not sure why you'd want to be at a gazillion g at all times.   You can turn very well in the viper anywhere between 360-440, depending on gross weight and stores and what your opponent is doing and you won't g your brains out.   The MiG-21bis can sustain some 6g at M0.8 on the deck, 6.5 at 0.9m.  Not comparable to viper, eagle, or even hornet ... until it plugs in emergency afterburner and adds nearly 0.5-2gs (depends on speed) to its sustained capability.

Yes, the AI does cheat, but all you need to do to defeat it is add a little vertical and force it into a fight it doesn't want to do - it will choose one or two circle depending on which aircraft its flying and what it's opponent is, and it will never change this decision - it's also really slow to reset itself into the desired fight, so there are plenty of ways to defeat it.

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. 

[Hmd turns itself off]

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!

[Taxi or landing lights on take-off]

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.

[DCS Modding Questions (Terrain)]

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:

1. How does one gain access to the DCS Terrain Development Kit (TDK)?
2. 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?
3. 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.

[Dcs VR]

This solution is kinda janky, but it works for me (specs after how-to):

1. WITHOUT DCS open, change desktop resolution to 800x600
2. Open your desktop (in VR)
3. Open DCS through the VR desktop

Essentially, your PC has to render every frame 3x - desktop, L eye, R eye. Putting desktop to 800x600 resolution takes a HUGE load off your rig. There may be more tweaks possible with this, but that's what I've been able to figure out so far.

My specs:

• Intel i7-6700K (4.4 GHz)
• RTX 4070Ti (12 GB VRAM)
• 32 GB DDR4

I went from ~13-29 fps to around 45 fps with just this change. Since MT came out, I don't have to do this and I get ~45 fps. I haven't really flown much since MT came out so haven't bothered to change desktop resolution (which would require me to use the hand controllers and I don't want to find batteries for them...).

[Avionics Systems]

Hello ED Developers, 3rd Party Developers, and wiser/more-knowledgeable-than-me Community,

First of all, I'm sorry if this is in the wrong place, but I couldn't really find a place it would fit.

I'm wondering if there is a set of avionics systems that ED has created that 'plug and play' into 3rd party modules. For example, if I wanted to create a different block F-16, could I use avionics already coded by ED to do this, or would I have to start from scratch and program all of the systems myself? 

If this doesn't already exist, are there plans to do this?

 

Regards,

S

[Can't change Avatar]

Looks like profile pic feature is down. I tried to do the steps (profile -> click avatar) and that didn't work. I also tried the 'complete my profile' link, uploaded a profile pic, and it didn't take. It does allow you to change your information (location, interests, job, etc) as well as upload a cover picture. 

[Heatblur from engines distorts HUD.]

Just going to bump this thread as this is still an issue.

It's rather annoying when you're taxiing and the HUD keeps randomly blurring and unblurring while following another jet. 

[wrong launcher rails for Aim-9s and Aim-120's]

Wow... I came here wanting to learn something. I learned two things.

1. Some people don't understand the difference between a game and a simulator, and,
2. There's a reason there aren't single-rail launchers on the F/A-18.

Pretty cool!

[VR Static Hangar Display]

3 hours ago, upyr1 said:

I suggested that we needed an easy way to change the aircraft in the hangar a few days ago. 

 

Yep, I gave you a 5-star vote. They said in the top post that they only read the first post and not discussion, so figured it was protocol to make a different thread since I'm asking for more features. 

[VR Static Hangar Display]

I would love to see all of the modules I've purchased in a hangar when I am in the menus in VR with the option to walk around and admire the work the developers have done.

As a bonus, it would be cool if we could climb into the planes and see a menu come up with the available missions/training for each aircraft.

Another bonus would be if there was like a maintenance crew off to the side with maybe some toolboxes with a laptop on top that would be the main menu instead of the thing hovering in your face we currently have.

[A-A mode or MSL OVERRIDE?]

On 2/24/2023 at 1:01 PM, Exorcet said:

AA Mode and the switch do the same thing. I use them both. One to have one radar set up saved, and other to have another radar setup saved. It's the fastest way to switch.

What do you mean by this? TWS vs RWS?

On 2/28/2023 at 8:03 AM, feipan said:

But radar range is not saved, so this is a bit moot

Range is easy enough to change with either the push buttons on the display or (even easier) the pipper (up to extend, down to contract, left/right to change azimuth).

[A question on your video card, and is it still able to handle the demands of DCS, and VR too?]

On 2/23/2023 at 3:41 AM, derneuemann said:

I have a 6700k running at 4.7GHz and a 3060ti.

In combination with Quest 2 I can be very satisfied (basically) but in DCS VR 8GB VRam is simply the lower limit of the puke.

I can only use a render resolution of 41.. x 21.. (I don't know the exact numbers off the top of my head). Anything above that immediately overflows my memory. At least in the AH64. In the F18 I can also use a higher resolution. But only medium textures.

Nevertheless, the Caucasus looks very good with ultra visibility and 100% forest visibility

Do you use Steam VR?

Are you guys setting this [framerate] in the in-game settings or somewhere else?

For Oculus Rift S (and I'm assuming it will work for Quest 2) try setting desktop resolution (via Windows Display settings) to 800x600 and launching DCS through your VR headset desktop display. It doubled my framerate from ~20 to ~45.

[How high/fast can you go in Viper - challenge]

19 hours ago, Fulcrumkiller31 said:

You are forgetting about drag, even if the T/W was 1.1 at any altitude (it isnt) you would still need enough thrust to overcome airframe drag. So no matter what you will not accelerate at least above a certain altitude in any jet. Otherwise you would be a Falcon 9 Rocket!

I didn't forget about it, I just didn't want to get into a discussion about drag specifics. That's why I said to compare it to unrestricted climb videos, because there are definitely some noticeable performance differences.