darkman222

This is probably no solution but a thing you should try out. I know you said you dont want floating windows. I understand that. But have you tried open kneeboard in VR? https://openkneeboard.com/ Of course it floats too. But not in your vision where your wingman probably is, as you can configure its position down towards the knees where an actual kneeboard would sit. I even use a wacom tablet and a pen to take notes on Openkneeboard. So well floating kneeboards might break immersion, but being able to write on it in VR brings so much immersion back Here is an example use in MSFS, but you get the point:

How is datalink transmitted in real life? Radio signals bend around mountains and objects depending on wave length. Its not a laser that needs line of sight.

Yes. It states that is now implemented in the DCS core. And for each module, in this case F16, F18 and F5 it says it in their own section, that the feature is enabled for that particular module. Thats why there are multiple mentions of it.

Feels like a half baked feature, that got its first iteration. The second iteration to follow "soon", then forgotten. And the F16, F18 F5 are stuck with an unfinished feature, that gives only them a disadvantage. Its a repeating pattern, I hope I am wrong in this case and the development does not slow down until a stand still...

Sure, because its only for the F16, F18 and F5... at the ""moment"" ( airquote)

Finally someone put out a video of it: But shouldnt the seeker stay on the target as long as the missile is not uncaged but locked by FCR? Bets are still to be taken how long it will stay the first iteration, and even how long it will take to be implemented on other modules. And the cirlcle will stay incomplete of course because I bet the FC3 aircraft will never get it.

Thanks for detailed testing and sharing of your results and observations.

So a framework for "standard IR tracking" that every module, by every deveolper, for the same missile type to use would be a disadvantage? Yeah, if it had a bug, all modules would be affected. But its only one bug. For example the F16 and F18 often share the same bugs as they have been programmed by the same core team. Now you have probable two bugs that are related, but need separate fixes. Twice the work. I am not a professional programmer, so I might be mistaken to think that. But the past has shown that keeping consistency is not the thing that ED prioritizes. This is what bothers me here. Its a combat flight sim. Unfair and unrealistic advantages are gameplay relevant and people use them as exploits. In the end it harms DCS, the playing experience and us the community. I dont care if non combat relevant systems in one jet are better modelled and worse in another jet. That does not matter in a simulated combat environment. Pre-flaring ( and all the other inconsistencies I mentioned) does for example. DCS is comlex and huge. It was never built for what it has become now, I understand that for sure. But now that its why its even more important to keep priorities in consistency in game play relevant features.

That depends on what standards one person has already seen. Son, I started in 1991 with combat flight simming. I have seen so many different simulators through out the years, up to 2018 when I started with DCS as well. There were so many simulators with multiple controllable aircraft in one sim. And the RWR, missiles behavior, missiles notching, radar, radar jamming, countmeasures, heat signature behavior when engine spools down... they were all consistent in every particular sim I played. Lets get back on topic and maybe we can discuss if MY assumptions are correct, that being susceptible to pre-flaring is (for now) only modelled in the ED modules: F16, F18, F5?

And I believe that DCS starts to become a digital combat GAME soon, using exploits to win, if things that are introduced on one module are not carried over to every other module, splitting DCS into 3 sections of aircraft: 1. Flaming Cliffs Arcade modules 2. Modules in development, that dont get realistic features added as soon as its introduced on others 3. Modules that have realistic features added, giving them a disadvantage because other modules dont have that feature added, although it exists now in the DCS universe. Your technical assumptions are correct, and logical. But it does not excuse DCS becoming a Frankenstein sim with different standards per module. This is only one obvious example. Or let me better call it "DCS - per module - microcosmos", instead of DCS World.

Update DCS 2.9.13.6818 shows: -Added method for IR missiles seekers to react on flares before missile launch (from cockpit). Each module needs to add usage of this functionality separately. And it shows ONLY for the F16, F18 and F5: -Added AIM-9 seekers tracking flares prior to the missile being launched. What this refers to is "pre-flaring" I guess, which is good to have it modelled. Why does it need to be activated "per module" Does it mean currently only F16, F18 and F5 have it activated? But not the F14, F15 SE, F15. And also not the russian jets FOX2s? That will give the jets that have it activated just a disadvantage for sake of realism.... Or do I misunderstand the changelog?

The ILS and the TACAN morsecode are driving me nuts, when airspawning in Caucasus on the dogfight server. There is one arena you always spawn over the airfield which uses the tacan that is default dialed in. So easy fix: map the tacan and the ILS volume knobs to a flip switch on your Hotas. Set it to the position that dials the volume down. Put the flip switch on the Hotas to the "volume down" position. Then set DCS to sync with Input devices when spawning. You hear the beepy thingy just for the first second after spawn, while it shuts itself down. Problem solved.

I mean it literally. Just put an AI aircraft in DCS that just flies straight and level, then do the same in any other sim. Now start a little offset and start to get in formation and pay attention how much you overshoot, over correct etc. The tendency that you get pilot induced oscillation is way more pronounced in DCS than anywhere else.

If you want it to be on, bind it to a flip switch on your hotas that you dont need. Set DCS to sync with hotas at simulation start. It will dial up the HMD as soon as youre in the jet.

DCS is the most difficult flight simulator to fly formation in. Try it in every other sim, also in WW2 sims. You will realize it is way easier everywhere else. And I am not alone with that opinion. Something seems to be off the way it is modeled in DCS' core sim.

Track replays fine for me. If its not replaying on your machine, why do you need it anyway? He posted a video of it.

The ACM mode is bugged in many ways. It also starts scanning from azimuth left side when activated. So it just locks the first target that's the most left one. With the bore sight in HUD or jhmcs. Locking a target in front of you is a hassle if there is another to your left. I reported it, it was set to investigating and locked. With the comment that it will be addressed after the data cartridge is released. Which I find questionable, because sure the dtc is also very useful...But broken ACM mode should be the higher priority as it is used frequently. Especially now if it is breaking even more with new updates. With those new introduced bugs, also another one that makes "no rad" stuck even when pressing TMS up, many users would be thankful to reconsider the priority to fix ACM modes I guess. @BIGNEWY

F18 with paddle just sits in your turn circle and chills while you're wasting gas M2K if you're behind him he will use his super small turn radius to deny your shots and make the viper overshoot in the end.

@DummyCatz I was doing a comparison between the energy bleed between the DCS version before christmas ( before the energy bleed below mach .7 was adressed) compared to the patch from the 24th Dec when the first part of the SEP issue was taken care of. I just flew the same profile, then updated DCS and did it again. Clean F16, 5000 lbs fuel. 5000 ft altitude. Starting from 450 kts. Full AB At the 180 degree mark 430 kts compared to 380 kts pre update ( 50 kts difference) (I also did a full 360 degree turn max performance FULL AB. Before the update this brought you to 260 kts after the turn. With the SEP update the turn ended with +40 kts at 300 kts.) But here is the question: I did the same turn again, but in idle throttle. After 180 degrees, the speed difference already was only 4 kts ( 176 pre update to 180 kts after update) I am talking about the 180 degree turn, because the speed loss for 360 degrees in idle is too high to compare. My observation is that the energy loss in a turn before and after the update seems to remain comparable with throttle in idle. Without the engine adding power to the turn, the energy loss seems to be almost the same. Where should the better energy retention come from? Shoudnt it come from less drag in general? If so, shouldnt a turn without the engine compensating with its thrust for the energy loss also result in a higher exit speed in a turn after the SEP update?

@BIGNEWY @Lord Vader Here is your data: Reproduction: -AG radar -GMT mode -reduce map visibililty (OSB5) -give the AG some time to get the AG contacts -right MFD: Press HSD page multiple times ( OSB8 ) = Crash Conclusion: Could be related to the HSD being displayed together with the AG radar Log included. dcs.log-20250124-083939.zip

That should be the one. I saved it, as I used it for performance testing between DCS versions. F-16C - Caucasus - Free Flight.miz

Reproduction: DGFT mode TMS up on target (locks) TMS down - shows NO RAD TMS up again - shows boresight cross together with NO RAD and not locking any more track attached boresight cross and no rad.trk

Where is your source for that behavior? The JHMCS is still locking the first target it sees. It is simply unusable if there are multiple targets flying side by side and you want to lock the target which is the furthest away to one side. It needs to go to NO RAD first while TMS UP is held, to slew the radar, then release TMS UP, radar activates after the JHMCS slaved the radar antenna to the desired target. Besides, NO RAD seems to be stuck sometimes, not being able to activate even pressing TMS UP multiple times.

I have been using both, a force sensing stick and traditional gimbal. And I still alternate between them. My personal rule of thumb is: For a force sensing stick: Remove all curves from the DCS input mappers, and dial gradient up to max and activate dead zone. This is how the F16 special menu looks by default and how the real FLCS works. So we want that for force sensing input. For a gimbal spring loaded stick: Gradients to 0 , dead zone off. Now you use the DCS Input mapper curves only and don't fight the curves provided from the F16 special menu. So you have pure and unfiltered control over what happens with your inputs. The jet will feel way too sensitive now. Use the input mapper curves to find the sweet spot for your spring loaded stick now.

Promising in deed . Although the right side of the EM diagram, the high speed energy bleed has not been addressed yet. Too early to to judge this fix as a whole I am afraid. Share your thoughts if you're able to test. I am heading off into holidays but still excited to read about it.