Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'model'.
Found 9 results
-
Hello. Does anyone by chance have any cockpit revamps that replace REDFOR FC3 aircraft with different cockpits? For example, an Su-25A with an MFD in it? Thanks
-
This bridge on the North side of L'île Saint-Germain located at N48°49'27" E2°14'55" appears to be submerged in the water. On the North end, the bridge clips through the terrain. On both ends, the terrain has an odd looking trench. The smaller bridge on the south side of the island also has those trenches. Additionally, the bridge seen in game is a truss bridge, but Wikipedia has a historic photograph which does not include the steel superstructure. I may be mistaken about this - I'm not sure if this photo is the longer or shorter bridge.
-
12/16/22 Preface: In this Friday's OpenBeta update, the easy coding fixes have been added for the P-51, 190s, Spitfire, 109, and 47. However, the Mosquito has been missed. Additionally, the armor plates that are missing from DCS entirely haven't yet been included. Items that were fixed in the 12/16 OpenBeta update will be highlighted in green, and marked with the update date. TL;DR: Many warbirds have incorrect armor values, or are missing armor. If you open the x-ray.edm in the Modelviewer, and the individual aircraft's Lua, you can see the IDs from the Modelviewer and see what those objects' properties are. Please click on the photos here, as while I've minimized them in this post so it doesn't get cluttered, but if you click on them you will see them in better resolution. The P-51D (INCORRECT): [FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The headrest and seat back armor (aka XArmor01 and XArmor00) - If we open Aircorps Library and look at the drawings for the late P-51D, like ours, we will see that these are two pieces of armor welded together. The headrest being 7/16", or 11mm...and the seat back being 5/16", or 8mm thick. Meanwhile in DCS, it is given a thickness of 22mm! For both plates! Almost three times the value of most of the area of the armor. I have an idea on how this value came to be, but I'll drop it into the spoiler below: [FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The armored glass (aka XArmor02) - In DCS, it is given a thickness of 75mm. Using the schematics from Aircorps Library, we can again see that it is 1.5" thick, or 38mm. [FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The instrument panel (aka XCockpitElement02) - In DCS, this is given a thickness of just 1mm! In truth, the instrument panel is a part that's for once, thicker in truth, coming out to 0.128", or 3.25mm. [FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The firewall (aka XArmor03) - This is given a value of 12mm in DCS, or just a scratch under 1/2". For our 51D, it appears that a more possible value would've been 1/4", or 6.35mm. The P-51D (MISSING): The coolant header tank armor - This is a piece of armor that has been missing from the Mustang's damage model. It is 1/4" thick, or 6.35mm, and lies just forward of the coolant header tank within the engine nacelle, between the coolant header tank and the spinner. In summary for the P-51: -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor00 from 0.022 to 0.008 -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor01 from 0.022 to 0.011 -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor02 from 0.075 to 0.038 -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor03 from 0.012 to 0.00635 -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XCockpitElement02 from 0.001 to 0.00325 -Add coolant header tank armor. Steel, 0.00635
- 28 replies
-
- 10
-
-
- protection
- dcs
- (and 17 more)
-
Fairly often there is a row over the damage model, and most often it ends with confusion because as users, the best we can get are the misleading graphics for damage from the outside, and a very simplified (doesn't catch nearly everything) debrief window that's only available to singleplayer. And aside from that, a small chat window that just says "Aircraft damage/destroyed" on the right side of the screen. It would benefit a lot of discussion and potential bug-finding if a tool such as featured here in Nineline's video we're available and open to OpenBeta users.
-
Someone informed me that they fired RB-15s onto a sub and the missile went right through and do no damage, I made a quick test to try and recreate it but I used a hornet with harpoons instead. Similar result. The harpoon goes right through as seen in these screenshots. I'll provide my .miz file i used for the test and a track file as well. I did another test but using a AGM-65F as well and similar result but the MAV still goes right through and explodes as it hits the water where the sub is and does splash damage instead. If memory serves me right a single AGM-65F should sink a submarine (Improved Kilo class) in 1 hit. Sub Harpoon Test.miz Submarine Harpoon.trk
-
Hi everyone, I've noticed some minor model issues with 4.5" Mark 6 naval gun, common to all of the Leander-class ships and the 2 Condell-class ships introduced in the new asset pack. Starting with the gun rounds, the 4.5" Mark 6 naval gun, as the name suggests, has a calibre of 4.5 inches (114.3 mm), at the moment however it's firing 130 mm rounds (presumably copied from the Slava class' AK-130). The real gun should have HE, SAP, AA (not sure if it has a timed or proximity fuse) and possibly, illumination. Secondly, there's the 3D model of the turret itself, which looks a fair bit off; the gunhouse is largely the correct shape (though roof doesn't look as sloped), but the main problem are the barrels, which are way out of proportion and serve to make the turret look more cartoony IMO: -
TL;DR first: The P-51 does not have it's fuel vapor line simulated in DCS. This could have a noticeable affect on how much fuel is recaptured into the fuel tank, as it could be as much as 10 gallons an hour. In close conjunction, the fuselage tank vent line (that the vapor return line feeds into) does not appear to be modeled, quite literally. Track: P-51 Fuel Vapor Return Check.trk I'm going to split this into two different parts. One for the fuel return line, and one for the fuselage tank vent. THE FUEL RETURN LINE: 1) THE ISSUE The DCS P-51 currently does not simulate fuel being returned to the fuel tanks from the carburetor. You can check this yourself by loading the P-51 with full fuel, and run on the left tank until it is empty. Then run and drain the fuselage tank next, followed by the right wing tank. You can check if any fuel was fed into the left or the fuselage tank by checking the gauges, and setting the fuel tank selector to either the left for auxillary tanks. You'll notice that no fuel will feed, the tanks are still empty. This is what's included in my track replay, linked above. 2) THE INFORMATION The fuel vapor return passes excess fuel from the carbureator back to a fuel tank. It is widely touted that this excess fuel was routed back to the left wing tank. However, starting halfway through P-51D-15 production, this line was redirected to instead feed into the fuselage tank behind the pilot, using the same opening as the fuselage tank vent line. Photos: The following two photos were taken from the Pilot Training Manual, AAF Manual 51-127-5, dated 15 August 1945, from page 20 and 22 respectively: Now here we have a maintenance manual (AN 01-60JE-2, 13-Feb-1948 Section IV, Para 14-15) stating the same thing, with some more detail. In addition, a representative drawing showing the placement and path of the fuel lines: Now, how is this dated to the P-51D-15? If you look at the schematics for the Mustang, you'll see assemblies for building the pipes to link the carbureator to the fuselage tank. Here you'll see this fuel vapor return line, returning fuel to the fuselage cell vent. On the bottom left, it reads used on P-51D Airplanes AAF 44-15253 & Subs[equent] also on AAF 44-11953 and Subs[equent]. The P-51D serial number is a D-15 airplane, halfway through their production run. So it's clear that when referring to the Californian Mustangs, it's specifically pointing out the middle of the P-51D-15 variants, when the vapor line change was implemented. However in this source, it seems that some Dallas-built Mustangs serial numbers are excluded or missed. I think we can assume though that the change occured similarly as in Cali, on the D-15s. 3) THE FIX At a rate at 10 gallons per hour or less, fuel should be fed back into the fuselage tank. For simplicity sake, it could be a generalized 7 gallons per hour, as DCS pilots will constantly change their engine settings between economic settings and military power, or even WEP. THE FUSELAGE TANK VENT LINE: 1) THE ISSUE In DCS, this fuel vent line is not in the 3D model at all 2) THE INFORMATION This was a tube that vented the fuselage tank, and gave air a place to enter the tank to stabilize the pressure as fuel was consumed. Additionally, with the fuel vapor return tube directly connected to it at the point that the joint where the vent tube met the tank, this would be the pathway that excess fuel would be leaked overboard and outside the aircraft, in the event the fuselage tank is full. Schematic drawings: Exerpts from the E&M Manual: 3) THE FIX The vent line isn't even represented visually in the cockpit, but it's in a very hard to see location so it's not that pressing. However, it is also not even seen from the outside, specifically the outlet port, that was located at the bottom of the USAAF insignia on the right side. It is an external identifying mark of Mustangs with the fuselage tank installed. And in addition, it is also where fuel will vent outside the aircraft, in the event the fuselage tank is already full, and getting fed by the fuel return line from the carburator.
-
Simply, is it possible to add an invisible model piece that covers a large section of the nose of the aircraft, similar as is done with bort codes? This would be a place for livery creators to easily add things such as nose art, and have it be easily disabled within DCS via rearming menu to switch between a livery with nose art, or a generic squadron livery on the fly. This would save massive storage for liveries, as this would essentially merge two liveries into one. While in the current system, one has to create a decorated livery and a generic squadron livery separately, with a system similar to bort codes (but for nose art) this would allow the livery to switch between the two, but within a single livery, saving space in DCS and making usability faster, and livery creation easier.
-
Hi everyone, A fairly minor issue that's as old as DCS: every unit with "Ural-375..." in its name (be it current or in-development assets) are not actually Ural 375s, they are in fact Ural 4320s. While the 2 are very similar externally, there is at least one obvious difference, which is by far the easiest way to tell them apart - the grille; the Ural 4320 has a grille with much more prominent vertical bars compared to the 375. The vertical bars also have a slight angle to them roughly 1/3 the way down from the top, whereas the 375 looks to be pretty much completely flat. Here's a comparison of what the 2 look like in reality: Ural 375D: Ural 4320: Note the significantly more prominent and thicker vertical bars on the grille on the 4320 as opposed to the 375 and also the slight angle to them ~1/3 the way down from the top. And here are the current models present in game: Truck Ural-375: Truck Ural-375 Mobile C2: SPAAA ZU-23 Mounted Ural 375: As you can see, all 3 clearly resemble Ural 4320s - not Ural 375s. To top it off, the unit "Truck Ural-4320T" has an identical cab with an identical grille seen in these models. This also applies to the 2 WIP Ural 375 trucks, showcased in this newsletter from 2019: While the angle of these 2 don't give us a good view of the grille, it's still fairly clear that these are actually Ural 4320s as opposed to 375s (the more prominent vertical bars can just be seen, and they have the angle to them). When these WIP models do finally get released it would be better to have them replace "Truck Ural-4320" and not "Truck Ural-375" as that too is an outdated LOMAC-era legacy model.
