Bear21

I have the 2.5.6 stable version installed (with virtually all mods and maps) and want to install the 2.5.6 OpenBeta to access a certain server. Can the GUI Updater help me to install a minimal OpenBeta build (just default mods and maps)? If not, how to avoid getting the whole thing downloaded once more in an OpenBeta path?

I installed it in the Saved games/DCS folder (simply drag the two folders onto the DCS folder, the rest is automatic). It appeared in the Specials tab and I could edit the programs, but nothing happened in the aircraft. I found the solution. You need Modify authority for the DCS folders CMDS_ALE47.lua file. You find it here for the F-16: xx:\Program files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Mods\aircraft\F-16C\Cockpit\Scripts\EWS\CMDS\device You find it somewhere in the Cockpit\Scripts folder for the other aircraft. Right-click on the file for Properties, then go to the Security tab. Click Edit and in the dialog click "Users (xxx\Users)"and set "Modify" rights. Then OK and it should work in DCS. Nice utility Bailey.

Please not the latest version of the software also writes to devices when you creat a new profile. Don't think the old versions did and this caught me off guard. Have watched all your videos HC, they are indispensable!

ECM is very dependent on ECCM, which makes it complex The problem with modeling ECM in DCS or in any simulator environment is that the effect on radar and any missile tracking system is not only dependent on the jammer's capabilities but also on how the radar and missile's seeker and their tracking systems are implemented and how sensitive they are to jamming of different kinds. If a jammer's basic capabilities (Jamming power (ERP), frequency coverage and agility, available jamming techniques...) are classified, the ECCM of the radars and the missile seekers are even more sensitive and deeply classified. In several cases, the fighter OEM has licensed rights to the module developer and it's not in his interest that ED or a third party makes his radar and/or missiles sensitive to jamming with some assumptions of for instance the missiles sensitive to cross-eye jamming (an angle jamming technique that affects modern radars and missile seekers more or less). Noise jamming effects and its burn through distance is basic and classical stuff and not sensitive. All radars are affected and it can be implemented with simple algorithms in a reasonable way. Anything more sophisticated like angle, range, velocity, glint, or polarization jamming steps into the ECM versus ECCM rathole and you are on thin ice in many ways.

Three types of MAWS There are three types of MAWS in use on aircraft today, each with its complexity and characteristics. 1. The simplest is the MAWS that work on detecting the UV light from the missiles burning motor. It can have a wide-angle single detector design that relies on spectral filtering to not trigger false alarms and empty the flare dispenser prematurely (and also give the aircraft away visually). There are not too many UV sources in nature, thus it works with the negative that it won't detect missiles where the engine has burned out. 2. A more complex MAWS, and, therefore, heavier and more expensive it the IR based one. It detects the IR heating of the missile fuselage as discussed. There are a lot of IR sources in a fighters environment (ref AIM9L problems with clouds lit by the sun etc) and it must, therefore, use sophisticated filtering to achieve a decent false alarm rate. The most know unit is the ELBIT PAWS. It has high spacial angle resolution and it uses track tracing filtering to separate occasional and stationary IR glints from a missile. The JF-17 MAWS seems to be of this type. One can see this on the sensor window which is opaque white like some longer wave IR missile seekers (UV ones have dark windows). But it can also be a UV system and the opaque window seen is a peacetime sensor aluminum cover (it seems to be a turned al cap). 3. The third type is a small pulse doppler radar looking backward. It's expensive, complicated, and difficult to install as the antenna diagram has to have very low sidelobes for it to work. The Typhoon MAWS is of this type. It can have a very low false alarm rate and will give the distance to the missile and thus it's time to impact. It can thus schedule the flare dispensing precisely. It has the negative of emitting radar signals that can be picked up by RWR and ESM receivers.

I have observed it as well, I think it's related to how well trimmed you are before activating recovery mode. You need to be well trimmed before activation IMO. Check it out.

No, both the manual shot and the DCS screen copy is in DGFT mode, the latter with radar lock through HUD search (TMS right). I realize what we have today is a bit of a cut and paste and we need a full Level 5 EEGS which is what the manual page shows. Let's see how we get there. The most obvious omission today is the closure rate.

Here some data re the F110-129 installed in an F16 from a professional engine design tool. ED should have something similar for their engine modeling: 20kft, M0.8 Max Military thrust ~34kN/7,600lbf. Engine airflow at fan face 77kg/s, intake capture flow (Big gulp as 0.65m2, speed 252m/s, air density 0.65kg/m3) 107kg/s. Flight idle at 64% N1 (from cockpit RPM gauge), thrust -2kN/-440lbf, engine fan face flow 22kg/s. 35kft, M0.8 Max Military thrust ~23kN/5,200lbf. Engine airflow at fan face 48kg/s, intake capture flow (Big gulp as 0.65m2, speed 237m/s, air density 0.38kg/m3) 59kg/s. Flight idle at 70% N1 (from cockpit RPM gauge) 0kN/0lbf, engine fan face flow 17kg/s. This illustrates a number of things: 1. A fixed intake is a BIG compromise. You have to size it big enough for takeoff, then it's too large at high speed, better at lower speed. Worse at dense air (low altitude), better at thinner air = high altitude. 2. It's optimized for max military thrust. Less thrust has more spill down to a max spill at flight idle. Afterburner has the same max airflow as max military so it doesn't change this for the same speed/altitude (it burns the remaining oxygen in the bypass/core flow to increase specific thrust with the same mass flow = increased thrust). 3. The negative thrust at Flight idle is not due to intake spill drag (this drag is not included in these tools, it's counted as an airframe drag). The effect seen is the inlet momentum drag also called ramdrag. It comes from a momentum loss when the diffusor part of the inlet slows the air to a fan face airspeed of ~M0.5 (engines work at a semi-fixed Mach, most parts at around M0.5, with the slowest part the burner at M0.2). 4. So on top of the net thrust, we shall add two additional inlet drags. A, the virtual increase of the inlet frontal area from the spill that results in additional pressure drag and B, any interference drag from any separation around the lips. This drags increases with increased spill such as at Flight idle when at speed. I don't put it here to prove something, I do this stuff for a living so might give something back as DCS gives me a lot.

Fair enough. If the feel is the same then it's ok. Thanks.

As I stated I have not flown the F16, either with PW or GE engine. Re your statement on inlet drag, are you saying this from detailed knowledge (I do, I work with engine modeling including inlets) or from an overall assumption?

The Vazani problem is not a roll problem, the RWY31 ILS is confused. Fly it with correct settings and it does what you say. Fly RWY31 with BC LOC setting (108.75 125°) and you have a correct LOC AND a correct GS (which of course in not OK). See discussion here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=258604&highlight=ILS+vaziani It could also be a result of the weird switching of ILS on airfields with just one ILS frequency, ref https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=206555. This must be special for DCS, never hear of it before and it means every pilot who has ever flown approaches will report bugs. It would then be better to introduce BC ILS (Back Course ILS) which is a LOC only approach on the back lobes of the VHF based LOC. (the UHF based glideslope transmitter has too low backlobes for it to give GS, it's a LOC only approach from the other end). The frequency, identifier, etc is the same and by setting the opposite RWY LOC heading you get a correct LOC indication. This is how the real world treats this situation and IMO it's what shall be modeled.

When flying the DCS ILS it starts snacking you around in the last mile before the threshold. You fly the cross centered in a steady 3° descent, well aligned with the runway (you can check it in VFR conditions) and then suddenly both the LOC and GS wanders off on the last mile in, in a way a real ILS doesn't. Strange.

You need to pilot the ship You have to have piloted different jets in formation flying to feel the lack of flight idle drag in this model, you can't feel it as a backseater (overshoot when joining a formation is standard, the join is harder than flying in formation, this is why you initially learn to join in a curved path as you then can regulate your closing speed with the turn radius). I performance model jets as my day job and know first hand you need to model spill over drag when you throttle down to flight idle at speed. Dependent on speed/altitude you are close to zero net thrust or at negative thrust from the engine/inlet combination. If you model with flight idle thrust you get the wrong total thrust-drag balance on the jet. You see it in your payload-range numbers and feel it in formation flying. I now fly with a little bit of speed brake when in formation, this improves the feel.

Confirm Vaziani ILS 31 is weird. As an ILS it doesn't work, as an Back Cource LOC it works but in the wrong way. If you set 108.75 and 135° you get LOC and GS on 31 working correctly. This is wrong. You can either: 1. Fix it to work with 108.75 and 315°, this is then as in all docmentation. 2. Skip the GS and relabel it as a BC LOC at 108.75 and 135°. But then you need to change all documentation ever made and also explain BC LOC flying in your Module manuals. No 1 seems more straight forward and easier.

According to F16 MLU manual (Mid Life Update of older F16 to ~Block 50 standard), the closure rate to a radar locked target in DGFT mode shall be shown, it's not a present. It's present in missile modes if you get a WEZ (missing in MSL override right now). Se Figure from MLU manual and a screenshot I took in DGFT with radar lock. Closure rate is good to know for avoiding overshoot and sudden death :music_whistling:

I'm new to DCS but not to flying and sims. DCS is so good I got back my joy of flying, on it every day now, years before. Based on recommendations from this forum I replaced my old FSX stick (was a lousy one I used for training for the odd airliner test flights) with the TM16000 suite. This was good advice, its feels good and functionality is OK, even if the stick lacks four ways. Then I bought the TW HOTAS as I came to fly the F16 a lot. While the throttle is good, I didn't like the gimbal at all (grip is OK). Lot's of friction and to high stick forces for me. So I got the Virpil Moongose CM2 and WRBRD. They are good. Then, just for fun, I bought the green spring from SAHAJ, just to test if it could improve the TW gimbal. To my preferences, it transforms the TW gimbal. Just flown it and it was soo much better, actually comes close in feel to the three real-life FBW sticks I've flown (two airliners, one fighter). The gimbal friction around zero is still too high but the rest is fine. If you don't have the money for a Virpil or VKB and are not satisfied with the original TW gimbal, replace the original spring with the SAHAJ green spring. It's much lighter and it gives a realistic feel to the stick.

I have the TM TRFP, Saitech/Logitech Pro and the CH Products Pro pedals. The ones I use are the CH products, the rest are in the garage. I interface them directly to DCS (plugged them in and hit adjust controls), they work very well. They are on the light side but this makes them not move around on their rubber feet like the other and you get to appreciate their smooth functionality including the toe brakes that work well. I bought them because of the recommendation on this forum, and the guys were right. Haven't flown the VKB, but these shall be combined with a Russian grip with the brake lever on the grip (has historical reasons). I have such a grip, the Virpil MG-C2 but use the brake lever for other things (Zoom view).

Delete deadzone in Virpil manager as well To the above we can add Virpil gimbal users shall put the pitch and roll axis deadzone to zero (factory setting is 2 units) to get an immediate response from the aircraft. It doesn't affect the pitch and roll behavior (like a jerky neutral stick), the windows output is stable despite bit flicking of the physical axis sensors.

The pressure recovery of the inlet (P02 o P01 in the graph, i.e. inlet pressure vs outside pressure) has a major influence of the thrust above M1.4. When we come over M 1.5 for a single chock inlet like the pitot one of the F16 the pressure recovery and how the engine handles the end of compressor max pressure (if it can take it or needs to bleed off excess pressure) influences performance as much as the airframe drag does. So some of the explanations for the bad performance can be small inlet plus PW engine for the F16N and big gulp and GE engine for the DCS F16. When I fly the DCS F16 at 25kft or higher I'm surprised what a lame-duck it is thrust wise in military power. It could be the intake/engine model is off rather than drag being modeled off. Who knows. But it seems a bit lame. But then I never flew the F16 so someone with real experience should chip in.

I guess the DCS aerodynamic model does not model inlet spill-over drag. Inlet spill-over drag is felt the most when flying in formation or in dogfights where it acts as an air brake when throttling back the engine at speed. The physics is intakes are a tricky part of the jet design. They are too small at takeoff and low speed and to large at high speed. At high speed, they are ok when the engine swallows the air at full or almost full throttle, throttle back and the inlet chokes and start pushing air over the inlet lips to the outside. This causes air separation around the inlet lips and quite some drag. You feel it like a small air brake when going to idle in formation flying and you hear the buzz from the separation. It helps you with the stopping so you don't sail past. In DCS you need to use the speed brakes more than normal as this brake effect at throttling down is missing (it seems). The thrust goes to flight idle but there is still residue thrust and the slowing down of the airframe is sloooow. This is not so in real life, you hear the inlet buzz, feel a slight buffet and the slowing down is noticeable. For most inlet/engine combinations the residue thrust+inlet drag at flight idle at normal speeds is negative. It's not too complicated to complement the model with it if it's missing. I post it here as the F16 is the last ED aircraft.

I've flown fighters many moons ago but the basic flying is like cycling, you don't unlearn it, you're just rusty in the beginning. Of the flying, formation flying was one of the most fun and satisfying. Having flown a lot of different aircraft since (about 15 types, from Tiger Moth to A350) and many simulators (about 10 including FSX/Prepar3D and real ones, moving or not, classical and FBW) I find DCS amazing! I only found it four months ago and believe me it's another level altogether, even to the real flight simulators (haven't flown the best 4th and 5th gen dome ones but have flown some 4th gen and most of the airliner ones. DCS on a good rig is really good!). Those who complain about DCS fidelity for the best mods are seriously spoiled! I find myself tired after a sortie, but I often finish with a 100ft low run down an ally (it's close to the real thing) and always taxi in and just feel the taxing realism and look at the surrounding animation when shutting down. Fantastic ED! and it really counts. It feels like I was in the real thing once again. Now to my finding. I've been really frustrated with formation flying. It's something I loved to do and it didn't work in DCS as it should. I've mostly flown the F16 in DCS and the setting of a displacement stick (see the thread about deadzone https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=251007 ) was part of it. But it still didn't jive. Today I found it. Going from TM16000 (good low-cost HOTAS) to TM HOTAS (throttle good, stick gimbal sucks) and finally Virpil T50-C2 gimbal and grip I found it. Virpil has high-quality sensors with high resolution but as the last bits flicker (which they do for a high-resolution A/D) they have a deadzone of 2 bits on the Y (pitch) and X (roll) axis. This spoils it in formation flying. I today put both to zero and Wow! You don't need this deadzone, the stick is dead output wise with what Windows sees (the logical output) without it, I checked with the output app. I also checked it while flying the F16. Not touching the stick has a straight flying aircraft, yet it finally reacts immediately to the minute inputs needed in formation flying. Just a tip for those flying Virpil, skip this deadzone in the Virpil physical to logical translation. It spoils the experience. Also, for any other stick, check for a dead zone for the stick or in DCS. Also, for the F16 put in a negative curve or limit the X-axis saturation (I fly with the latter), it's all in the deadzone thread. There is one more thing which is not realistic, the absence of engine inlet spill over drag when throttling down. This makes the aircraft not slow down as it should when you approach a lead in formation or when going for a Gun position in a dogfight. I will write a special thread about it.

I flew one of the Cold War competitors (one of the deltas) and after flying the M2000C and F16 I decided to try my cold war opposition aircraft. Fascinating! And such a difference to what we had in the same period. So raw and basic and difficult to fly and land. And such a crude weapon system. I love the Ku-band radar with realistic weather effects! I should revert to the more modern aircraft but I find my selves keeping on flying the Mig21. It's so challenging and rewarding. Great job and a must for every collection. This module shall not be sold at a reduced price, it's a gem.

That is the point. You are getting your displacement stick to give more Y deflection (pitch or roll amplitude to the FLCS) per unit X (force), ie you are increasing the gain of the pitch and roll axis just like an FSSB does. And there is only 100% Y to be had, hence you have to reach it earlier, otherwise you haven't got a higher axis gain. But everyone to his liking, use X Saturation or Curvature or both. X saturation is taking your stick closer to an F16 stick in behavior, negative Curvature gives you the high gain around zero but less at the end. Both methods give you 100% Y = full rudder authority, the former with a shorter throw, the second with a longer throw with a non-linear curve giving you an F16 gain at the start of the throw and a lower gain at the end. Both are better than the base setting.

Fiddle with the X saturation It should be fine, just put the Saturation X at 60 to 70 for roll and pitch in Axis and you will have a responsive Viper. This is a more general fix for the difference in axis gain for FFSB and displacement stick than changing the Curvature (this you can still change to fine-tune around zero stick later).

It's force in both cases The F16 stick has force transducers working against a sprung stick with a small displacement (the initial idea of force only stick didn't work for the pilots). So the signal to the FLCS in pitch/roll is a decoded amplitude of the force level. The displacement stick has movement transducers working with a sprung stick with a larger displacement. The signal to the FLCS in pitch/roll is a decoded amplitude of the force level against the displacement springs. In both cases the input to the FLCS is how much force the pilot applies, ie no difference. The difference is in the slope of force versus amplitude of the signal (derivative force/digits to FLCS). Presicion doesn't come into the equation. The gain in the force vs digits to FLCS does (it's all about this derivative). The bottom line is an FFSB has a higher derivative than a displacement stick, no other difference in this case. ED decodes what stick the player is using. As the gain: "force vs exported amplitude" is not exposed (other than by making a custom curve or playing with the value for X saturation. The curve parameter does not set a linear gain change) it would be for ED to set this gain dependent of a used stick, to mimic an F16 stick as a base setting. Then the player can fine-tune with the "tune axis" as he likes.