Search the Community

Currently there is not a way to bring up the air to air FCR when in air to ground mode. Shouldn't we be able to use CRM when increasing to a target in air to ground? Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Following patch 2.8.2.35632 Open Beta, pressing NUMPAD 5 will recenter VR view (same command as "recenter VR headset" under UI Layer), even if one unbinds all commands related to recentering view / recentering VR view from UI Layers, General, and the flown Aircraft. Using SteamVR as my current OpenXR runtime. I've been using my numerical keypad as keys for the ICP in the Viper and the KU in the Apache, but after today's patch am unable to do so since pressing NUM 5 will recenter my view even if I unbind all recenter view functions for the keyboard.

As the title says. Only way to back to the nav point is by undesignating through the TGP, which is annoying if you haven't loaded one. Reproduction: - prep Miz with one steerpoint - Load bombs -take off - designate any location with AGR/GM - try to undesignate

Situation: Fighter (F/A-18C) gets task to "Follow" or "Escort" a B-52 bomber. The bomber has task "Bombing" a location on the map. Result: Fighter follows bomber as expected. Once the bomber starts the "Bombing" task, the fighter stops the follow/escort task and proceeds to its next waypoint where it orbits until the bombing task is accomplished. Question: Maybe this is intended but I see no reason why the fighter would stop the escort when the bombing task is active. So is the the intended behaviour and if so, is there a way that the escort task is not "paused" while the bomber attacks?

Good morning fellow pilots / DCS team, As the title indicates, my on-board gun no longer works when the FCR is active. I made a short video of it. And maybe that's how it should work, I'm curious about your ideas about this.

Please see, https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-7.html As one can see in the table towards the end of the page, according to the article, the Aim-7A and B have a maximum speed of around Mach 2.5 while the Aim-7C, E, F, and M/P have a top speed of around Mach 4. Clearly, these are just brochure figures and that the actual top speed of the missiles is most certainly lower during most (non-ideal) engagements. However, when testing the Aim-7's in DCS, one finds that their top speeds during "ideal engagements" are much lower than expected (according to the article). As one can see in the first image below, the top speed of a lofting Aim-7MH when fired at 35000ft and Mach 1.2 under standard atmospheric conditions is around 1530 knots TAS or Mach 2.67, slightly higher than the top speed of the A and B (according to the article). In the second image, under very similar launching conditions and parameters, the top speed of an Aim-7E is around 1515 knots TAS or Mach 2.64, similar to the MH. According to the article, the similarities in top speeds are to be expected however the value of them are at least a Mach number lower than one would expect. Aim-7MH Launch .trk Aim-7E Launch .trk

Since a few updates ago, I can no longer put a weapon on all stations 5, 6 and 7. When I load one on 6, and then on 5 or 7, the one on 6 is removed. If I put weapons on 5 and 7 and then on 6, the ones on 5 and 7 are gone. When I select a configuration with weapons on 5, 6 and 7 I made before the update that changed this, they are all loaded just fine. As long as I don't change any of the weapons on 5, 6 or 7.

Unless there is some other kit or modification to the bird I'm unaware of, the AH64 doesn't have tinted (or at least, enough to be very visibly apparent) plexiglass windows. These are the curved windows, the ones on the side and above the pilot's head. The only windows with a tint were the ballistic glass, above and forward of the CPG. Some pics to try to show what I mean... 2nd photo I took myself incidentally some time ago

The 3D Pilot figures seem to be out of scale (too small? or too short?) on the Apache. Hope this helps! I did my best get pics/screens that best presented what Im trying to show. See below for reference pics: Reality vs DCS Pilot seat height...they can barely see over the dash + look at the size of the real pilots compared to DCS Next up, look at the height and scale from reality vs DCS in this side view. Look at the height of the CP/G's helmet relative to the seat in reality as compared to DCS: Another few pictures from Reality vs DCS (side view):

I'm requesting a change be made to the positioning and subsequent harmonization of the gunsight. The current position of the sight reticle (since day one of release) is too low. I made a gif of a screengrab taken of a GM2 sight video and recreated the FOV in game the best I could, and matched the two images up using the petrol tank cap and the top cowling seam as a alignment point. As you can see the real life sight was positioned higher with the 100ft ring touching the top of the cowling. (dont be thrown off by the sight glass both the oval and square were used with the GM2) This matches with the description of the official mkIX tactical trials report No.46, paragraph 13: "The Spitfire IX is fitted with the G.M.2 pilots reflector sight and although the aircraft is longer in the nose than the Spitfire VC, the 100 m.p.h.(sic) ring of the sight is still just clear of the nose." http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9tactical.html I do not have the exact quote but I also recall a pilot's description of not being able to fire on a target that was on the deck because he could not get his nose low enough to land his shots without essentially flying into the ground. I do not have the precise degrees above the datum the sight was calibrated to but its clear that the sight is too low as it is positioned currently and needs to be looked into. Thanks.

Hi ! Since the lighting in the F-16 is somewhat weird I don't know if it is working as intended or not but ... the wingtips red/green lights are always lit up even if you have the position switch on "off" The only way to turn it off is by rotating the master light knob to off or covert positions or turning the form lights knob all the way down. What is weird is that in either bright or dim position you can see the bulbs. In the off position, the bulbs are off but the lights are still there. The white bulb at the base of the vertical stab is working as intended ... It's been a while since I flown the Viper but I don't remember this working that way.

Hi, When just turning the key of the AH64 for start-up i now have "big static noise" coming out of radio's. The motor is not even started (so the radio's should not even work). Then we have good old gunnerseat: after i have been in front seat, my power handle reverses in logics. So when 'powering up' it 'powers down' and vice versa. Very handy ;). After doing a quick switch again between positions it is good again. This makes flying the apache harder than it actually is. I hope it is solved soon or later.

I have tested the AI Spitfire on both the Channel and Normandy maps , different heights, bomb loads. The bombs do Not explode. With the exact same ME settings, the other WW2 aircraft all drop and their bombs explode. Bomber test 1.miz Bomber test 2.miz

Title FCR Show Track.trk

I noticed that the SHOT reports when looked at will always display zulu time, regardless of the setting in the TSD->UTIL page. Is that correct?

So as the title indicates, the Apache searchlight is not working properly. I can turn it on and off but I can't move it up or down.

With HARM in SP mode and the pullback OVRD option boxed in NAV or A/G master modes, it shows unboxed in A/A master mode. It stays unboxed regardless of the selection in other master modes. Also, when in A/A master mode, it is not currently possible to change the status of HARM PLBK OVRD. OVRD.trk

I know this..i saw wags video, but i tried to wait more and more but nothing: after i press to norm: nothing happens, i can only switch to maa, the other button are useless (FCR..) i made a repair but nothing... first 2 Photos are from Matt's video, thee last 2 mine: it seems that is corrupted, the buttons are ineffective and different from Matt's video

Incredibly hard for the FCR top pick up targets. Is this intended? Flat area, desert (Nevada) Track starts midflight, roughly 6,5km from targets. I can clearly see the targets ahead. 6 armoured vehicles. Start doing single sweeps into the area. It's not until I'm less then 1,5 km away it picks up the targets... Even at 100 feet AGL I cant pick up anything. AH64D_radartest.trk

Hi all. Before yesterday's update I can remove crosshair selecting ?SKR as acquisition source (missile seeker, I believe). But now it doesn't work. If is that feature is "correct as it is", is any way to remove the crosshair from the IHADSS? I usually fly alone without human CPG and I like the IHADSS as clean as possible. Thanks!

Per title. AIM-9P5, L, M, X all seem to still work fine Tested on Persian Gulf against MiG-29S Neither automatic nor manual uncaging seems to work

As the title clearly states, the Hornet's external lights (formation, position and strobe) are not working after a cold start, but if you get an airstart they will work just fine. This has started in the latest MT build (2.9.1.48335)

Preface: The main purpose of this post is not to strictly improve the missile performance itself, but to correct values in the AIM-7 missile Lua code that are not accurate to the publicly available information. Any improvement to the performance of the missile should be seen as a side effect and not the intended purpose. This post seeks to compare several public sources on the AIM-7's Hercules MK-58 rocket motor to what is actually modeled in game, and contrast them accordingly. Tests were done using a modified AIM-7F utilizing the "corrected" values to showcase the differences to the vanilla missile. Only the AIM-7F was used for testing as the kinematics between each variant carrying the MK-58 rocket motor are practically negligible. The Tacview files will be provided in this post. The ED AIM-7 vs Public Data: 1. Rocket Motor Burn Time According to ED's missile code (Fig. 1), the AIM-7 has a booster stage burn time of 3.7 seconds, and a sustainer burn time of 10.8 seconds for a total run time of 14.5 seconds not including the 0.2 second delay for the boost ignition and 0.2 second delay for the sustainer ignition. However, according to the "Raytheon AIM-7F Standard Missile Characteristics" data sheet (Fig.2), "AD-A-142508" (Fig.3) and "Gallery of USAF Weapons, 2010 Almanac" (Fig. 4) the stated burn time for the boost stage is 4.5 seconds and the sustainer stage is 11 seconds for a total run time of 15.5 seconds. This is one full second, not including ignition delays, of difference between the ED code and public information. This may be a negligible difference, but there is a conversation about edge cases where the one extra second may matter. Figure 1: Default Eagle Dynamics AIM-7 MK-58 motor code Figure 2: Raytheon AIM-7F Standard Missile Characteristics Engine Ratings Figure 3: AD-A-142508 AIM-7F data sheet Figure 4: Gallery of USAF Weapons, 2010 Almanac AIM-7 data sheet 2. Boost and Sustain Fuel Mass and Mass Ratios Looking at the ED code (Fig.5) boost stage for the MK-58 has a fuel mass of 38.48kg (84.83lbs), and the sustainer stage has 21.82kg (48.10lbs) of propellent for a total mass of 60.3kg (132.9lbs). The sustainer-to-booster propellent mass ratio is approximately 63/37. However, comparing this to the Raytheon propellent masses (Fig. 6) the boost phase contains 52.0lbs (23.6kgs) of propellent and the sustainer fuel mass is 83.0lbs (37.6kg) for a total of 135.0lbs (61.2kgs). The sustainer-to-booster propellent mass ratio with this information is approximately 39/61. The actual masses of propellent in each stage are practically the same with only an error of 7.5%(smaller mass) and 2.3%(larger mass), but reversed in ratio. According to a Canadian study of the Mk-58 Mod 5 rocket motor, there are no listed measurements for the individual propellent masses except for a total fuel mass of 61kg (134lbs). However, the stated sustainer-to-booster propellent mass ratio is 70/30 (Fig. 7) which leads to a booster fuel mass of roughly 18.3kg (40.3lbs), and a sustainer fuel mass of roughly 42.7kg (94.1lbs). Neglecting that the Mod 5 version of the motor may have slightly different masses for each stage, the point stands that the ED MK-58 is coded to have a complete reversal of the publicly available data on the propellent mass and mass ratios for each stage. This will lead to noticeable differences in the performance of each stage as we will see in the test portion of this post. Figure 5: ED AIM-7 fuel mass code Figure 6: Raytheon AIM-7 SMC Fuel data Figure 7: Canadian MK-58 study 3. Boost and Sustain Specific Impulse Values As stated in the ED AIM-7 code (Fig. 8.), the specific impulse for the boost phase of the MK-58 motor is 247 seconds, and 209 seconds for the sustainer phase. Using the ED values, and a gravity value of 9.8 m/s2, we get a boost phase thrust of approximately 25.174kN (5659lbf), and a sustainer phase thrust of approximately 4.138kN (930lbf). Now, according to both the Raytheon AIM-7 SMC (Fig. 2) and the AD-A-142508 (Fig. 3), the stated thrust of the boost phase is 5750lbf (25.577kN), and 1018lbf (4.528kN) for the sustainer. Note that the ED values are underperforming, but can be considered negligible as there is only an error of about 1.6% and 8.6% and motor performance varies with many factors. Using the ED values for both thrust and fuel mass, but correcting the fuel ratios and burn time for each stage, we get a boost phase specific impulse of 530 seconds and sustainer phase of 121 seconds. This is quite a dramatic difference in performance between the actual ED missile and this theoretical "corrected" motor with the boost phase being over twice as efficient, but the sustainer being nearly half as efficient. Now, this may seem as though the performance of the missile may also dramatically improve, but, as we will see in the tests, this is not the case. This is a minimum however as the ED missile uses a lower thrust and fuel mass compared to the public data, so there may be performance left on the table. If we use only public data to formulate the specific impulse of each stage then we get a boost phase of 498 seconds and a sustainer phase of 135 seconds. We will see how this version of the missile compares to the ED one as will. Figure 8: ED AIM-7 specific impulse code In-Game AIM-7F Tests: Test Parameters: Game Version: 2.9.1.48335 Map: Marianas Weather, Date, Time: Mission Editor defaults Launch Platform: F-15C Launch Altitude: ~40,000ft Launch Speed: ~1.5 IMN Target Platform: MiG-19P Target Altitude: ~40,000ft Target Speed: ~1.2 IMN Test 1: Control: Test 2: Corrected Burn Times: Test 3: Corrected Burn Time, ED Fuel Mass, Corrected Ratio: Test 4: Corrected Burn Time, ED Fuel Mass, Corrected Ratio, and Specific Impulse: Test 5: AIM-7F Public Data Only: Conclusions: First, comparing the control missile to the missile from Test 2, we see that the change in burn time yields practically zero difference in peak energy states. However, it can be said that the extra time in the boost phase and overall longer burn time will help in edge cases where a slightly longer burn time would result in better terminal energy. Looking at Test 3, we see that the acceleration observed at each stage is dramatically different where the majority of the acceleration of the missile is felt during the sustain phase rather than the boost phase, and the overall acceleration of the missile is much smoother reminiscent of the AIM-54's motor. Yet, again, the missile does not yield any noticeable improvement to peak energy state, but it can be said that this could perhaps drastically improve the performance of the AIM-7MH and P missiles as the loft maneuver is less than optimal which depletes the effectiveness of the MK-58's boost stage. This is just speculation though. Next, we see that in Test 4 we finally yield some peak energy improvements however small. It is worth noting that the energy graph has now returned to shape of the vanilla missile with the boost phase taking the brunt of the acceleration leg work. Although the gains are small, this would still result in a better missile with the extended burn time and slightly higher peak energy state, however marginal. Finally, we arrive at Test 5 using only public data. This missile yields the best peak energy state gaining as much energy over Test 4 as Test 4 gains over Test 1. Again, the energy graph is practically a replica of the vanilla one in terms of shape. Although the specific impulse of the boost phase is lower than that of Test 4 the sustainer is higher, and this results in the higher energy state as Test 5 would have higher actual thrust values compared to the ED numbers. It is important to note that Test 4 and 5, where the sustainer specific impulses are lower than the vanilla, would indicate that overall performance may be worse against a maneuvering target, but, again, this is just speculation since the test was done against a cooperative target. Overall, ED has done a fair job at replicating the AIM-7's MK-58 motor performance using "incorrect" fuel ratios and specific impulses, but it is unfortunate that it has been done with "incorrect" information. I believe that the closer we can get to real values (as long as they are public, of course) the better the simulation will be. References: 1. Raytheon AIM-7F Standard Missile Characteristics: http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/2016/08/raytheon-aim-7f-standard-missile.html 2. Gallery of USAF Weapons, 2010 Almanac: https://www.airandspaceforces.com/PDF/MagazineArchive/Magazine Documents/2010/May 2010/0510weapons.pdf 3. AD-A-142508: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA142508.pdf 4. Canadian MK-58 Mod 5 study: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA596430.pdf AIM-7F Corrected Burntime.acmi AIM-7F Vanilla.acmi AIM-7F Public Data Only.acmi AIM-7F Corrected Burntime+Fuel Mass+Impulse.acmi AIM-7F Corrected Burntime+Fuel Mass.acmi

bug or not?

I had assumed this was just a training issue, but all the obvious stuff people told me to do has not seemed to have an effect. I checked RLWR was enabled. I have chaff armed. I have chaff set to program. I setup a test miz with a single SA-8. I am never seeing chaff automatically dispensed when a radar missile is launched at me. Am I missing something else? (See attachments) (The chaff stores count never decrements.) RLWR_Test.trk RLWR_test.miz RLWR_Test.trk