Search the Community

In short, bought the CH-47 and I'm noticing significantly worse performance than with other helicopters or modules. I'm guessing that could be in part due to being in early access or whatnot, but still wanted to either hear other user feedback, or perhaps confirm whether that is in fact to be expected and maybe even further optimization is planned. Cheers!

Shouldn't the IR beacons activate on the bottom of the CH47 like the others? I do love how the IR formation lights look. That's for sure.

Earlier this year a problem with the Patriot missile max speed was reported, acknowledged and fixed. But even though other missiles got reported in that thread they got overlooked and haven't received a fix to this date. I perceived this problem initially with the S-25L missile, that behaves way too different from it's dumb cousins S-25O/OFM. After some more investigation I found out this speed cap is plaguing many missiles in the game, most of them SAM's. From what I managed to test, the ones with problems are HAWK, SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, SA-8, SA-11, SA-15, HQ-7. To be more specific, the bug refers to the missile hitting a max speed wall during flight that makes no sense with how solid motor work, physics work, or with real life data. It is clearly noticeable with the S-25L as you can fire it in a dive and after hitting the "wall" the missile begins to decelerates as it descents even if it is still burning, because the "wall" seems to be a function of altitude. Also clear by how the Hawk's fire control completely overestimates its range and fail to hit a target moving straight. The SA-10 and Patriot are currently working as expected. I don't know of other problematic SAM or A/G missiles apart from these, but there could be more, if anoyone else could help testing. SA11_speed_bug.trk Hawk_speed_bug.trk S-25_speed_bug.trk SA2_speed_bug.trk SA3_speed_bug.trk SA6_speed_bug.trk SA8_speed_bug.trk SA15_speed_bug.trk HQ7_speed_bug.trk

In VR the rear door gunner is not first person. Instead it's like a third person chase cam view looking at the gunner from behind.

Anyone else have an issue with the rear gunner? Seems the camera centre view isn't set correctly (facing forward not aft), so it's not possible to aim the gun. Also when set to AI, aft man doesn't want to fire. aft gunner.trk

During Wag's latest video demonstrating the use of VRP and VIP, in both cases he is attacking pre-planned targets at a known location. In this instance, why would you not just position the steerpoint directly on the target during planning and do a standard 30/30 pop up based on distance to run? What is the advantage of the VRP/VIP attack? Is it a remnant of pre-GPS attacks when the IP would actually be used to update the position by using an easily recognisable feature? (is this why it needs a TMS up on passing the point?) What am I missing here?

Lately, i've noticed the the TGP is able to spot targets on the ground through thick clouds. Although i haven't investigated, a friend told me the F18 tgp is able to do this too, so it might be a more general thingy. Track file with demo included. tgp look thru clouds.trk

Hey, I am having an issue, when I am in a cold apache with my friend. When we want to rearm the Apache and add the FCR the FCR is not synchronized and only the one who rearmed the aircraft does have acces to the FCR. For the other one the FCR is not installed on the FCR page. It just seem to appear when the aircraft is not rearmed in the Missioneditor. Thanks

The radar ACM modes tend to ignore targets within the dashed regions and return to previously locked targets that are far outside them. Here are two clips showing this behaviour. As you can see, in both cases I am unable to lock a target in the boresight ACM circle, and instead the radar keeps tracking the target well to the side. Track is attached. Lesson 11-AA Gun.miz_30042024_14-52.trk

Overall, the flight model feels pretty good, with one notable exception - tail rotor thrust. There seems to be way too much right pedal required in level flight, regardless of airspeed. At roughly 100-110 KIAS, the vertical fin should have enough airflow to counter the torque effect at a cruise power setting, meaning the pedals should be roughly neutral. At slower speeds or higher power settings, therefore, you would anticipate needing MORE anti-torque effect, or left pedal. However, it seems that a significant amount of right pedal is required at speeds less than cruise. At those speeds, the vertical fin is not as effective, requiring more left pedal, but I find myself needing right pedal to keep the aircraft in trim. Thanks for all the work in getting this aircraft to where it is. It gives us geezers a chance to re-live our youth.

as stated in the title, when performing an in flight alignment, the flight path marker locks itself to a magnetic direction and is no longer dependent on direction of flight. see track. i realize this system is in development, but this is kindof an important feature for those of us who are prone to mistakes in our startup flow, and it was previously at least functional if not accurate. in flight align bug.trk

Hey Folks Thanks for the new flight model. In slower flight envelope the jet feels great, however I do strongly believe that in it's current state the F/A-18 is too dominant in some of the flight characteristics. Here are my main takeaways of the current situation in DCS 1) Viper is a dominant energy fighter with a two circle bias. (Even the brick house that is Block 50) 2) It's widely believed that Viper's flight model is actually following the charts (where they are available) very well. Well done ED 3) In DCS Hornet is better than the Viper in Instantaneous Turn, One Circle, Two Circle. Viper has a minuscule edge in energy retention (if GLOC is managed - a little easier now with the new GLOC mechanic, thank you ED) I know the flight model is a work in progress, however I understand you need data to do something with it and the tasty parts are classified. Here are a few suggestions: Below is a chart that was made by GVad. He is a prominent member of the community who focuses heavily on flight model and is on the Mig 17 Team By the graph below we can see that the Hornet is over 2'/second stronger than the F16 in Rate Performance. That's not a small edge. In a fully balanced rate fight with two aircraft in their best rate speed this would mean that the hornet will have a guns solution in less than 1:30min. We can also see that the Rate speed in DCS for the Hornet is actually 420KIAS instead of the widely recited ~360-380KIAS What was also mentioned is that 'There's an issue in DCS where planes above mach 0.6 turn better than they should because at above 0.6 wings actually produce less lift' Why do I think the model need a change? It's undeniable that the F/A-18 is an amazing, but in the end it comes down to the fact that the Hornet is better than the Viper through the entire flight envelope in and in almost all aspects. Viper would not exist and have the reputation it does if this is the case in the real world For the record, this is how the black F/A-18 "actual" data was derived according to Gvad himself

There is no Force Feedback modeled for the chinook in my Microsoft FFB2 joystick. Because my joystick has no springs and runs using an electromagnetic motor it is virtually impossible to fly with the stick 100% dead and certainly renders the trim completely useless. Folks I know its an old joystick but its modeled for every other module in the simulation. Don't knock it before you try it cause you can literally feel the air baffling on the wings before the stall, air speed relative to stick stiffness in WWII planes, differences in stiffness for different planes, hydraulic fluctuations, Trim positions, armaments being placed on the pylons, the immersion list goes on and on making it undesirable to go back to typical spring setups

MP and SP same behaviour. You have a Litening TGP and HTS pod installed and powered, everything working fine. After rearming (any loadout, just keep the HTS loaded), with the HTS hardpoint (HDPT) switch on, the HTS stays powered and is available without power cycling. According to this post it should behave like the TGP and go off so a power cycle is required. Kind regards dcs.log tgp test.trk DxDiag.txt tgp test.miz

The target coordinates are correct, and the waypoint information entered in the DED panel is correct, but the actual JDAM that has been delivered will only hit a part of the target's offset constant This is the shooting range of the server, I don't have the AI control of the ground unit turned on, and the bomb energy is enough (in the middle of the DMZ) Pickle height: 18000ft level flight delivery The DMZ range is in the middle of the largest to the smallest I didn't do anything until the bomb warm-up countdown was over Please refer to the attached screenshot file

Hi, I noticed that after losing some optional parts of my plane, the wings still cause the condensation effect to trigger, even though they are no longer part of the plane. I don´t have a track for this one, only a screenshot. The effect appeared and disappeared based on the AOA at which I was tumbling down.

Hello and many thanks for introducing the F-16 in DCS! Could I draw your attention in the sequence of the retraction of the wheels shown clearly in this HAF video at min 3.45 you can see that the rear wheels are closing just before the nose wheel which is opposite to the sequence is shown in the video WAGS has posted. I am not sure if it is only the HAF block 50 vipers that have that sequence many thanks Tolis https://youtu.be/O9tTNDLyB8E?t=227