Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'w.i.p'.
-
Spotting dots are very large in VR. With my Valve Index, at certain ranges, both the dot and model are rendered. In this situation, the dot can obscure the aircraft, such that I can't see the aircraft model and its heading and attitude. I'd like to see some kind of slider to reduce the dot size. Dots disappear seemingly at random based upon where I'm looking and whether I'm using no zoom, VR zoom, or VR spyglass zoom. Aircraft at ~2nm (3.5km) only have the model rendered, no dot. With no zoom, aircraft can be extremely difficult to see at this range*. The abrupt change from a huge dot to a tiny model (or vice versa) is extremely jarring. Maybe add a slider to adjust the minimum dot range? *I'm a pilot IRL and I can easily spot tiny aircraft like the C172 at 2nm
- 123 replies
-
- 11
-
-
-
- investigating
- spotting
- (and 1 more)
-
reported New pilot model issues / helmet view issue
TheFreshPrince posted a topic in Bugs and Problems
Hi, first of all the new pilot model looks really great. So far I've already found some bugs: 1. When looking back, you "zoom out" of the head and the helmet obscures the view. This is actually severe, because as of now, you cannot look back in the Hornet it seems like (2D, don't have VR). 2. The (oxygen?) hose disappears when looking more forward 3. The cord runs through the belt
-
So, for the last few versions I have started to get an issue with the Power Levers when in the CPG cockpit: I have "Power: Both" bound to an analogue axis for AH-64D CP/G There is no other axis bound to that function for AH-64D CP/G There are no DirectX button binds for any of the Power Lever actions There are no axis binds or DirectX button binds for any of the Power Lever actions for AH-64D Pilot. The axis input shows as smooth and non-jittery under Tune Combo Axis, so I don't think there is any real noise. When the Power Lever axis is at 100%, the lever is stable and in the "Fly" position. If I position the Power Lever axis anywhere between 100% and 0%, the lever position in the cockpit jitters by maybe 10-20%, and always towards the FLY position from where I have the lever actually set. If I pull the Power Lever axis back to 0%, the Power Lever position jumps immediately up to the FLY position and stays there. It is acting as if some other binding is trying to push the lever to 100%, but as I said, there does not appear to be any other binding for that axis. Furthermore, if I remove the CPG binding, then go to the pilot position and re-bind the same axis in the same way for the pilot's Power Levers, they work fine and smoothly - the problem seems to be unique to the CPG position. I wonder if George-as-pilot might be trying to push the levers up to 100% when they shouldn't be allowed to? If while CPG I hand control over to George-as-pilot, he certainly does push the power levers back up to FLY immediately (but then I'd expect him to do that) My CPG axis bindings, just for reference...
-
I'm an Oculus Quest user, my spotting before wasn't the best, but I could see like most of us - an average mkI eyeball user. With the new spotting update, I can see way more, and by that, I mean everything, every dot is huge. Honestly, this is War Thunder level of mega dots you can see across the map. I can see everything and everywhere in the range of what I can estimate 50km. I know I can revert back to the old way. The problem with this is now I am going to be at a disadvantage compared to people who use the new spotting. Also, DLSS which I actually need makes them even bigger. I honestly think you guys have overdone it. Please consider reworking it. Kisses and hugs -
Haven't try other modules, bnullut in the A10Cv2, the TGP is visible without NVG in IR and BTH mode. See attached screen.
-
w.i.p Apache (George Pilot) ability to steady hover is very poor
mdee posted a topic in Bugs and Problems
Hi, I have quite severe issues with George AI when hovering, the hover is unstable and makes operating from the front seat very difficult, sometimes impossible. The heli oscilates from left to right, 10-20 degrees each side. I have tried all George modes, doesn't make any difference. I have tried with an empty heli. I am using latest beta, I have triple checked my controls, no trim, no wind. I can hold a stable hover from pilot seat. Any ideas? -
I recently did some comparisons between various aircraft in DCS as some people have stated that the efficiency of the JF-17 and the Hornet are quite high. To my surprise I found a very head-scratching engine economy and performance on the Hornet. All tests were at 30000ft, ISA-like conditions, full internal fuel and the default DCS loadout (pylons when applicable). The Hornet was the outlier across the board and did not even closely match the publically available and stated values I have found. It has by far the longest full AB time of all jets I have tested in DCS, much better economy and a much lower TSFC than most other comparable jets in DCS. Below are my test results. Especially in the chart above you can see the F110-GE-400/402's TSFC of 1,23 in FULL! afterburner. Publically available sources state a value of 1,74, which is mostly in line with comparable engines of similar thrust rating and size. Below is another picture showing a fuel flow of 22200 lbs/h in full AB at Mach 1.63 and 30000ft. I think GE would've won a nobel prize by now if they managed to develop such an efficient engine. Now, other aircraft such as the F-14B, and F-16C match the stated values very well, the 16C's fuel flow matches the real, publically available FF charts mostly within a margin of +/- 5%. I wasn't able to find any publically available fuel flow charts for our F/A-18C and I do know the document designation of where to find those values, however this very document seems to be classified. Now my question to ED - since your aircraft are built on publically available data, what source or data did you guys use to model this? Could you please reference a source that would back the current performance of the Hornet's engines? If not, would you please consider adjusting these values based on public TSFC values for dry and wet thrust? Currently the Hornet is way more efficient than the Tomcat or any other comparable jet- nothing of the "short legs" the US NAVY was talking about all these past years.
-
There seems to be inconsistencies with fuel flow which worsen as altitude and speed increases. As speed increases fuel flow starts high, dips, peaks, then declines again. There is also a disparity with the amount of lbs/nm of fuel being used in FPAS vs lbs/hr that is shown on the IFEI. The actual fuel usage appears to align with the lb/nm displayed in FPAS. This data was taken on the Syria map, 29.92 barometer, 20 degrees C, clean jet with no pylons, and 50% fuel load. Infinite fuel was used to negate any airspeed changes due to decreasing weight of the aircraft. The final mach number in each chart is the maximum speed attainable at that flight level. Y axis is lbs of fuel, X is speed in mach. IFEI lbs/hr usage is 100x times the value on the chart so an IFEI value of 142 on the chart = 14,200 lbs/hr and for FPAS a vaule of 42 = 42 lbs/nm. In most tests throttles were advanced at .4 mach and I started collected data at .5 to allow for engine spool time. The 40,000 test data starts at where the throttles were put into AB, this is due to the aircraft struggling to maintain attitude control below that airspeed at that altitude. Acceleration in full MIL at 40,000 feet was not recorded due to the aircraft needing nearly full MIL just to maintain altitude. Unfortunately, I am unable to go back to the prior version and run these tests in that environment. There are no tracks because each test was 100% just the jet flying in a straight line with me pausing every additional .02 mach to record data. I can't say I'm particularly knowledgeable of all the exact variables that go into calculating fuel flow vs speed and altitude, but something certainly seems off and there are usage shenanigans happening after the FM update. It doesn't seem logical that the lbs/nm burned should start to decline as if air resistance is falling off as the aircraft approaches the maximum speed for a given altitude, all while the IFEI fuel value keeps climbing. The transition point from where lbs/nm usage is increasing to it all of a sudden leveling and tapering down seems very suspect to me as well. FWIW, playing on Gray Flag prior to the update I would typically take off from an airbase and do CAP in an orbit up at 48,000-49,000 feet around mach 1 +/- .1 and with a loadout consisting of 3 tanks, 6x120C, and 2x9X. I would have a loiter time of 45 minutes to an hour before coming down to tank. I can't go back and check prior to the FM patch now, but I seem to recall up around those altitudes fuel consumption was something around 7 or 8 lb/nm in full AB. Now a similar loadout barely has the ability to maintain an orbit up around 43,000, is not able to reach mach 1, and fuel consumption is in the 40ish lb/nm range.
-
When I try to Create Fast Mission on the Marianas or Channel map I click FLY and it scrolls up to 8% and the scrollbar disappears. And that's it. No mission loads. I cann fly Instant Action missions on these maps though. Also, when I clicked ADVANCED MODE on the Channel map there were no airfields to pick from. I had updated to the latest version today. I don't have andy mods installed. Did a full Repair (Long method), and deleted extra files that it found. dcs.log
-
Currently in DCS the F-16 has 700 steerpoints, as far as I know the F-16 could either have 127 or 999 steerpoints. 127 with an INS + GPS solution (which we have in DCS) or 999 with an EGI solution. The allocation for steerpoints is also wrong, you should be able to select threats as steerpoint (similarly to how you can set most things as a ACQ point in the Apache), because that's what the steerpoints are for. I have attached a track and can PM evidence of the correct steerpoint allocation if required. stpt allocation bug.trk
-
see title. tested with GBU31 and GBU38 JDAM_Fuse_option_bug.trk
-
Hi, DCS 2.9.0.47168 Open Beta -- mentions only one known issue: Added New pilot model from first person (Work in progress). Known issues: The salute command doesn't work when using option Afterburner detent. However, another one is the kneeboard that seems to skip on displaying pages from the or the information brought by the past update (DCS 2.7.14.23966 Open Beta): Added Additional carrier data to the kneeboard - ATC frequency, TACAN and ILCS channel.
-
In many cases it's so difficult to boresight the Maverick, because of the font color on the display. Check how is the font color compared to the sky in the background. Impossible to see anything. Can the font color be changed to something different? null
-
Hey there ! I noticed that the FARM report does not seem to work with the AI wingmen. When I request one it says that it is not acknowledged. But if I ask a PP, it works. Is this a bug or is there datalink limitations with AI wingmen at the moment ? If so, what can they do or not do at the moment ? Thx ! Fly safe
-
When George has been in control of the controls, he will have reset trim to center. When taking back control from George the controls will initially be at the position George last left them, but not trimmed for this position. Hence when you take over control from George again, unless you happen to be able to put your controls in the exact same position as George is holding his when taking over, you will be left fighting to get the helicopter under control again. George should leave the helicopter trimmed for his last control position, so that the player can just leave his controls centered to continue flying with George's last control position. This will make the handoff of controls much less stressful, particularly in low level flight!
- 45 replies
-
- 10
-
-
Hi @BIGNEWY / @NineLine ! I would like to send a question to ED team with hope to get an answer at the end. Its about Hornets vital systems: FUEL - HYDRAULIC - ELECTRICAL POWER SUPPLY - ENVIRONMENTAL - FLIGHT CONTROL - AVIONICS systems and backup systems. Many enthusiast interested in DCS Hornet flying have their copy of Hornet NATOPS Flight Manual downloaded and some of them also did study some of the topics like Hornets performance, procedures and how the systems works and how to operate them (including emergency procedures). I did that also, with in some limited extend of chapters I found interesting. After some quick testing and system failures set in ME. I found that DCS Hornet systems/subsystems (depends on which one) works only roughly or some not at all like described in NATOPS FM. I will not go here to the details of what I have found wrong or incorrectly simulated, because I really don’t want to make this topic to go off topic just after created. So my key question to the team is: "What is the current state of Hornet FUEL, HYDRAULIC, ELECTRIC, ENVORONMENTAL, FLIGHT CONTROL, AVIONICS systems, or how accurate are these system modeled, when compared to Hornets NATOPS FM, and what is planned to fix / add in future of this great DCS module? What are the player possibilities to solve emergency procedures according to NATOPS flight manual if being hit in mission or when player made his Hornet systems failure setup in mission editor to practice emergency procedures." "Will there be any EMERGENCY Guide made by ED for the Hornet module in future? Fuel Motive Flow Feed, Transfer, Gravity with its valves and pumps (depicted in NATOPS A1-F18AC-NFM-000 Figure FO-11. Fuel System (Sheet 2 of 3)) Fuel Motive Flow System with its valves and pumps (depicted in Figure FO-11. Fuel System (Sheet 3 of 3)) Hydraulic system with its valves and pumps (depicted in Figure 15-5. Hydraulic Flow Diagram) Control surfaces affected by hydraulic system malfunction (depicted in Figure 15-6. Hydraulic Subsystems Malfunction Guide) Flight Controls (depicted in Figure 2-12. Flight Control System Functional Diagram) with its backup control 2.8.2.10 Mechanical Linkage (MECH) Avionics systems (depicted in Figure 2-20. Mission Computer Functions and Multiplex System (Sheet 4 of 5 and Sheet 5 of 5)) Electrical power system (depicted in Figure 2-9. Electrical System (Sheet 2 of 2)) Environmental Control System (depicted in Figure FO-12. Environmental Control System) -
w.i.p sa page exp function not documented in flight manual
Coding posted a topic in Bugs and Problems
In the Hornet manual, the exp function from the sa page is not mentioned at all. -
In Wags' video for the HTS, the Mark page shows an elevation of 907ft for the markpoint, while the TGP shows 2975ft. Time is 7:44 in the video. Reporting this so that if there is an error, a fix can hopefully make it into the patch!
-
I found a bug where you can get a non functioning a/g radar that doesn't do anything and seems to have TGP functions. To get this bug to happen simply press air to ground master mode on the ICP then the FCR should auto open on left MFD. Next press the FCR osb button on the bottom, then re open the FCR page but press the osb button at the top left (has to be top left). You should then have this weird looking radar display. Let me know if further instructions needed or a .trk file. Thanks
-
Hornet rudder movement is seriously overcorrecting and flapping hard when there is light wind and turbulence. This starts when the FCS is in landing mode -> when flying on speed AoA. The shaky movement is unrealistic for any actuator, and sometimes it can actually make your landing worse by moving the plane sideways. In the track there is a "realistic" turbulence and weather setting but the rudders move unneccessarily fast which makes the approach and landing shaky. In the video you can see how smooth the movement should really be. There are plenty of landing videos on Youtube for reference material. I also want to emphasise that I do know that there needs to be large and quick corrections when there is wind and turbulence but currently the rudder is overcorrecting and shaking a lot. The movement just needs to be dampened quite a lot. rudder movement.trk -
I had crashed two digits times right now, it makes felt that there is something worng with the flight model, as there are abundant video resources indicate that hind in reality is could be highly stable during takeoff and landing unlike in game which is basically uncontrollble, i think that there is something wrong with the flight model and wish ed to correct it sooner(same goes uh1 huey and mi8)
-
10000ft_M042_sustained_G_26000lbs.trk Condition: 26000 lbs total weight, drag index = 50 (6 amraams), 10000 ft, mach=0.42 F-16C-50 should sustain 3.2G at this condition, however there is no way I can sustain this G load in DCS at this condition. I'm doing 2.9G mostly. Please see attached.
-
I'm pretty sure whats happening is that server side I am desyncing and pulling 5g with the sight open, causing the gyros to fail. But clientside, Petrovich still says the weapons are ready and the doppler system gives strange readings. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C3CHRj77qoKixNOymIo7dFB_6zyAKNV3/view?usp=sharing
-
Dear All, and Virtual Pilot ! Since we are not able to pull 9G yet, i was considering to put this together to see any discrepancy. So i compared the ingame values with the irl data, which is publicly available to everyone. It seems some things are heavier where it shouldnt be, and others lighter than it should. I limited myself to the listed loadout only as it takes a long time to research, so there might be other weapons and pylons off. I have no way of testing the index values so that is up to ED to know if its correct or not. Note: The corner plateau of the F-16 is between 330-440 KCAS. The quickest to at max G is at 440 KCAS (calibrated airspeed). The F16 airframe alone is pretty light itself, so the +245 lbs will effect its flight performance. EDIT: i know with this loadout wont be able to pull 9g, i just wanted to put it out there.
- 1 reply
-
- 1
-
-
Just watch 84f851d3c05c84721b26b3d85a58357d.mp4 The visual
