Jump to content

vanir

Members
  • Posts

    281
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by vanir

  1. I ran out of C drive space for my DCS installation. I fitted a new SSD F drive into my PC. I copied the C drive 250GB DCS file in program files over to the new F drive and replaced the desktop updater link with one pointed at F drive file. I ran the updater and it downloads into the F drive which is perfect. I noticed however that it still checks the C drive DCS files when the updater is run. I would like to delete the C drive DCS folder to free up space on that drive for Windows and just use the copy in F drive. What config ini or other file edits do I need to make so that the game treats the transfer to F drive as the original C drive DCS folder installation and I can delete that folder from my C drive?
  2. How do I turn on external views during track replays? :(
  3. The original SSD C drive is only 500GB but I thought it would be enough since Windows 10 Home and DCS are the only things I have on that. I use a 1TB HDD D drive I put all other files and programs on. So now I only have 80GB of SSD space left and I'm getting worried about future patches and I did pre-purchase the Syria map so that might be a problem. What I don't want to have to do is buy a 1TB C drive replacement and have to do a full system reinstall, I would rather stick a compass needle into my eye. My question is, to prepare for when I get an updater message that tells me I've run out of C drive space, how do I redirect all further DCS downloads into another drive, will it prompt me for an alternative drive selection or will it just return an error and tell me about my poor life choices? Can I simply buy a second SSD when Melbourne's stage 4 covid lockdown ends and install that as an E drive and redirect future downloads there, whilst keeping the existing C drive worth of DCS? If Syria comes out before lockdown ends and I only have my HDD D drive can I redirect it there with the rest of DCS on the SSD or will this cause problems loading between two different types of drives? I also have an external storage device WD Elements SE 1TB USB 3.0 and I'm not exactly clear on whether that might be considered an SSD or is something else again? Should I direct further DCS files to that and just keep it plugged in when I want to play? Would the USB drive load quicker than a HDD? I get the SSD is best of all, but like I said, lockdown big time around here, can't buy anything but food/essentials within 5km of home, night curfew, fines of up to 10 grand, won't be buying a new drive just yet... So, is there a prompt to redirect a DCS download if there isn't enough space on C? Just hit D drive or the USB drive and good to go? Or will a clock appear on the screen and begin counting down to a motherboard fry in a fit of Russian humour? Do I need to make some registry entries to make a split drive DCS installation? What will happen, basically? What do I need to do?
  4. Cheers. I've got them under Insurgents when kept neutral with the period restriction set to "off", a grey bullseye appears in Crimea. What are the bullseye's anyway? The blue one at Poti, red one at Krasnodar and now a grey one in Crimea? Are they a capture the flag deal, put an opposing ground force there and what happens?
  5. Very useful streamlining what I was doing trying to make a realistic environment for what starts out as a simple fighter mission with some other stuff going on around it. Might be fairly straightforward to detail a relatively isolated battlefield scenario on the Gulf map but the Caucasus are a whole different ball game where even if you say the Russian economy is so bad there's only a trickle of equipment updates and vastly reduced unit strength you're still talking about one of the most heavily fortified regions of the cold war, an area so disconcerting to NATO that even at the low point of Russian military strength in the 90s and height of black market arms trade throughout the region the big concern was southern district local commanders effectively comprising a rogue state in precisely the scenario of a Tom Clancy novel. And I don't know exactly what the deal is but some local commanders both army and navy have a serious hard on for the Tblisi government, in fact referring to them as the Tblisi government, certainly not the Georgian government illegitimizing the very state, meanwhile Moscow handed over Vaziani airbase whilst the military district still occupies Batumi army base and regards that sovereign territory, no wonder NATO rejected the Tblisi application, throw Abkhazia and South Ossetia into all this and the place is an out and out can of worms. At its simplest, air operations in Georgia seeking to avoid nuclear escalation between parent nations and allies still face some conditions created during the height of the cold war, such as the almost suicidal prospect of crossing the mountains into Russian airspace with anything shy of several hundreds of warplanes. In the modern environment you'd be better off on the Ukrainian approach which they'd have been up for but then Moscow blocked that with its rook move in the Crimea, probably for the exact reason. In mission construction I try to recreate that knife edge sense of terror for fighter operations in Georgia, whilst the mud slingers have it a little easier with a more confined combat environment, but whose complexities are nevertheless as layered as the skin of an onion with CAS having to wear the hats of force interdiction of support units and SEAD with the ever constant threat of having to contend with interceptors which may come over those mountains at the drop of a politically justified hat mid mission. "Oh there was a Russian peacekeeper unit from the 554th marines of the BSF with the Abkhazian incursion? Our bad so that's why the MiGs came over the mountains and shot down our CAS." Okay so you can just imagine the map population of both static clutter and active AI units I'm laying out there and keep in mind this all started out as a simple fighter mission, haven't even started populating the conditions for that, this is just the setup. But also some client options of doing some CAS, insertion/combat support, SEAD and force interdiction with choppers and attack aircraft given that all has to be going on anyway to justify the fighter operations, my main focus of the mission. Why do anything by halves? The setup is Abkhazian incursion at Zugdidi followed by conventional escalation of Russian occupation at Senaki and Poti with a fictional NATO partner intervention, keeping in mind a Russian army base at Batumi and an airbase in Armenia, along with the no fly zone along the Caucasus border, an EWR and home defence fortification of the overkill variety specifically aimed at a NATO pincer arm through Turkey, as it always was upon the strategy of defence in depth in those Soviet days through to now. For the fighter units themselves I'm trying to recreate that cold war generated sense of extreme tenuous footing operating close to that Russian border along the Caucasus, since let's face it, the cold war might be over but its themes very much prevail in this region. Picture this: it's 1983, the world could explode into nuclear holocaust at any moment, with both sides trying to maintain their territorial interests whilst both avoiding that scenario yet necessarily threatening just such escalation. At the tactical side you have ridiculously reinforced defence networks tasked with at least reducing the total number of delivery systems, useful also for prohibiting conventional penetrations and a national security environment which necessitates a totalitarian state which stretches across provincial regions into satellites, but some of these provinces like Georgia and Ukraine are inherently dissatisfied by a long history of disparaging service/support ratio with the centralised government. Local sentiments reminisce historical ancestry of independent empires, long before Moscow fought off Muslim dominance to create the Russian state Ukraine was a Viking colony taking control of the ancient Greek trade ports, agriculturally developing the interior in true Nordic fashion, whilst Georgia was a lot like feudal Romania/Hungary. These are proud traditions entirely dismissed by the Tsars and their secret police and furthered, not improved by Soviet control. Yes if KGB in Soviet era makes you apprehensive you haven't even read of the Tsarist royal security force upon which it is essentially based and entirely more polite. Now you, the American spy Colonel Gant in a Firefox scenario are inserted into Georgia and the entire political environment is oppressive, a Soviet border territory with the looming bear just across the mountain peaks, the intrusive glances of plain clothes KGB agents at every hotel you stay, Soviet collaborators at every tavern you dine at watching your every move, the outsider, a latent sense of both rebellious independence and totalitarian enforcement hanging in the air of every shop you enter or marketplace you browse, the outsider in a place where everyone is an outsider within their own homes. Remarkably you blend in but the threat is overwhelming. Fast forward to the post Soviet and the main thing that really changed is the veil removed and the KGB left, the political situation isn't really that much different. For one thing the threat, across those mountains is just the same. So you, now the NATO peacekeeping force in post Soviet Georgia flying fighter cover for ground support operations preserving Tblisi control of its sovereign territory, aside Abkhazian and Ossetian secession but predictable incursions from those regions whilst those matters are reviewed by the international courts as opposed to Russian determination (personally I'm apolitical on this, talking entirely about fictional mission scenario). Let's say you're Spanish Hornets to avoid the controversy of US forces operating so close to the Russian border proper. You do not want to cross those mountains into Russian airspace no matter what the circumstances, even if it means taking down Russian MiGs coming from those very mountains to intercept CAS supporting defending Georgian ground forces against Abkhazians sporting old Soviet surplus somebody gave them the warehouse access keys to, not mentioning any names. Fighters range in combat, which can take them far from the green zone and on this particular map that's gotta be a terrifying prospect for those pilots and I'm also trying to recreate that sense of dread in the cockpit, which hopefully might give a distracting immersion but adds many more dimensions to an already entirely overpopulated map a good computer would have trouble numbers crunching without a significant fps decrease. A simple fighter mission on the NATO side in Georgia isn't so simple, one wrong move and a couple of MiGs turns into a home defence escalation at full conventional capabilities already massed on the border the way a Great White shark identifies objects with its mouth, a place you just don't stick your hand. So, what I'm trying to say is these tutorials are giving me ideas about streamlining my tendency to overpopulate, without compromising the atmosphere I'm trying to create, in the simplest manner and oh boy did I need it.
  6. I get a thumbnail for CAM on the welcome screen but nothing in the mission editor. No country called CAM and none of the CAM aircraft are in any of the national aircraft lists. Is there a secret button? There was a secret button! Yeah didn't think of looking under Insurgents. Who would? Found them.
  7. No luck, but I don't have open beta installed. I only have the stable version. I tried ...\DCS\Mods\aircraft as well as ...\DCS.openbeta\Mods\aircraft but doesn't show up in the mission editor either way.
  8. Yeah, when I move it from there to user/savegames I no longer get it disabled but it doesn't show up in game. If I put it in mods/aircraft or coremods it gets disabled. It's only in one place at a time, but doesn't work in any of the three places. The last time I installed mods was FC2/modman a long time ago. I just have the stable DCS version installed. Do mods only work with open beta? I have downloaded OvGME just now, that won't break stable or anything will it? Do I just use that?
  9. Only just discovered this, not having much luck getting it to show up in game. Following the instructions and putting it in C:DCS World/Mods/Aircraft just gets it disabled as unauthorised DLC on start up. Searched for ideas and tried C:user/savegames/DCS/Mods/Aircraft as per "how to use mods" thread, doesn't show up in game. Tried putting the folder in core mods too and that gets disabled also. Is it incompatibility with 2.5.6 or am I doing it wrong?
  10. vanir

    X56 mode switch

    Thanks man, exactly what I was looking for.
  11. vanir

    X56 mode switch

    Just got the X56 and first started mapping just FC3 Su33 with it as plug and play before I figured out there was a separate driver software for it with programmable features, so now I have the Logitech drivers and software installed. My question is about the modes switch M1, M2 and S1 on the throttle quad. I was hoping they'd act like a modifier for all the other switches so I could map all the toggle switches for say, avionics modes nav, BVR, etc. and then switch to M2 and remap all the toggles for aerial combat switches like flares, TWS, etc. and finally switch to S1 and remap all the toggles again for gear and flaps, etc. But I noticed when I was mapping the first time that DCS seems to only recognize the modes switch as trigger buttons, button 32, 33 and 34 IIRC so it's only reading them as buttons instead of modes or modifiers. Any reconciliation on that, is there some way to use them as mode switches rather than button numbers? How do I get DCS to read M1, M2 and S1 as modifiers for the other switches and buttons?
  12. A VVS MiG23ML of any version in DCS has been what I have been hoping for since the beginning. I hoped that this and the MiG25 are so iconic that they would be scripted by someone eventually as full modules. At the height of deployment for example there were around 1800 MiG23 in service and 300 MiG25, alongside hundreds of Su15 and a few dozen Tu128. I have long been looking forward to any of these types becoming modules. All hail RAZBAM! I'm excited to see how it flies. I've been impressed by some things I read about the phenomenal acceleration of the MiG23ML versions and already imagining how such a strength might be exploited as a true high Mach fighter in an environment where most fighters are really designed for the transonic envelope. Perhaps repeated disengagement/re-engagement could be a tactic which might work against some NATO fighters which might have better turn performance in a similar way to how the early P38 would combat the Zero in WW2. It will be interesting to see and no matter what I'm sure it will be my favourite module.
  13. I feel like I should've been given full disclosure during pre-sale marketing that the normal everyday stable 2.5.5 that you don't need a NASA mainframe to get some FPS with won't actually be getting supercarrier module access until it's updated in well, maybe a year or two. You seriously pre sold without mentioning it won't install, assuming some people don't like bugging up their PCs with beta shells? That's really dishonest. Anyone ED related want to clear up exactly the **** is the deal here? :)
  14. I'm aware of Aegis capabilities but I look at missiles themselves purpose designed to intercept other missiles, like the Kashtan VLM system and these are remarkably agile little hunters, not unlike an aerial dogfighting missile, compared to the Standard which is like a scaled down V2 vintage wtf with an avionics update...and I have to wonder, arms trade American sales pitch aside is it a bit like an elephant trying to catch a domestic cat? and if you're going to reply like American missiles can do everything better than everyone I'll have to point out that, of course India invented civilisation and Chinese people are descended from a completely unique branch of hominid, I've heard these sorts of things all before. I can see with my eyes the Standard is not like a Kashtan.
  15. Around 1984 I fell in love with flight sims so I seriously love ED too. Honestly, they can't really do wrong by me, I consider the money I've happily spent to be an absolute bargain for not just the quality of the product but also the sheer man-hours that I know full well goes into it. I've javascripted a little for IL2 SAAS mod version, I spent an entire year researching my Ta152C0/C3 flight models, spoke to incredible people like Dietmar Herman and the head mechanic on the White 8 FW190A8 warbird restoration and got access to their documents. Around 15 months after I announced it at the mod website I actually uploaded it. It's intense, and a journey.
  16. I wondered about that. I saw this behaviour in footage of kuznetsov launches and wondered what did it mean. Thank you for answering it :) Also thank you to BIGNEWY, I'm happy Kuznetsov needs the SC coding to run and has some features. This is going to be such a cool module :)
  17. Mainly Kuznetsov, just to whet my appetite I'm guessing it will have some differences not just the external model to the one currently in free version? More aircraft parks? What other differences? I get the supercarrier will be amazing, just wondering about the other two ships and what features those have :D
  18. High speed tests during production were done with the radiators closed, at full throttle, special boost if fitted or military power if without, opened when starting to overheat to give the best possible speed result, after 1 minute for the 601A/N, ten minutes for the 601E/F, 2 minutes for the 605A/B/AS and ten minutes for the 605D series. Afterwards, due to cylinder heating the engine required a 30 minute cooldown with radiators opened full and reduced power settings. Once you heat the motor it needs the long cooldown, continuing to over boost or full military power with radiators shut and the engine overheating will, of course destroy the motor quite quickly and it won't cool before the 30 minutes with radiators open, so you can't open it up again until later or you destroy the motor. The Heinkel fighter that competed with the 109 for the military contract back in 38 had a novel idea of the entire radiator being extendable and it was a bit faster than the 109 at full throttle only because when both radiators are closed for high speed the Heinkel one completely retracts into the fuselage and makes no drag at all, the 109 just closes the doors on its rather boxy ones. The 109 still won because it was felt that under combat conditions the retractable Heinkel radiator might experience failure in the mechanism and the old fashioned boxy radiator was more reliable, but cost something like a 3% hit in speed loss. In case you're wondering, it'll overheat just the same at full military or special boost with the radiators open full so you might as well close them, cylinders are heating faster than the capacity of probably twice as many radiators to cool them, the 605 series motor does this at anything beyond 1.35ata but the 605D is a lot more resistant than the 605A so takes a lot longer to overheat: 10 minutes instead of 2. It's at climb setting, the 30 minute power setting that you open radiators full. I should add special attention is required by pilots for all Daimler motors at lower altitudes due to heating of the oil system by slippage in the blower hydraulic coupling during its altitude step before locking up, there's Daimler graphs for what I just said at ww2 aircraft performance dot net among other places but the cliff notes are all Daimlers love to run especially hot at low altitude and very especially hot in warm climates and low altitude, they spray oil and flame and kill the pilot. Marsielle's fatal bail out was caused by exactly this in his new G2. At low alt and/or hot climates the 605 not just overheats but opens its seals and sprays oil when it does. The rest of the time it just overheats and doesn't want to cool down for ages.
  19. copyright protected and doesn't like being linked but one comes up on the first page of a google image search, underbelly shot in flight, not dummy missiles, has 2 R77 and 2 R27R, recent photo. I was just using google image search and watch a lot of combat approved Russian documentary and its youtube channel. YouTube and google man, what's this "source" crap? Are we doing a university course and you need references to publish? I'm not making it up mate, so what's wrong with talking about it?
  20. I found the R77 photo while looking for pictures of the Su33 actually in service with the extra two wing pylons over the Su27 we have in game. It's a video still off the deck and isn't carrying orange or striped dummies like the airshows and arms conventions, these are live missiles. I wasn't there and can't say that it wasn't a propaganda shot but there's no reason for those lengths when it's perfectly clear any export Su33 need only a software cassette to fire R77, whilst adding the capability to the Russian ones needs only the same. So you can figure out what you think the photo implies. Sukhoi themselves also state it had Kh31 capability since serial production but I don't know if they mean it just needs a software tape like the R77 or if it's already good to go and you just stock the Kuznetsov magazine with them when you want to bolt them on. Magazine stocks are actually a big expense in Russia, in Chechnya they decided to use up a backlogged stock of WW2 artillery shells and there is no question the variety of modern munitions in Russia far outweighs their actual availability in stocks or limited production lines. For all I know it could very well be an interservice rivalry between VVS and Naval Aviation for the latest, modern weapons stocks, especially since the PVO got folded into the VVS and the blue water navy plans of the soviet era took an immediately lower priority since. There maybe no plans to stock Kuznetsov magazines with either R77 or Kh31, as the roles of the Su33 before final retirement might find R27 and rocket packs perfectly adequate and the navy might be on a waiting list for some weapons. I do know the Su27SM upgrade was completed quite some time ago now, pending conversion to Su35ovt, for which the budget is a little tight so will take some years hence the midlife update. We have Su30SM in the game, it's just the same weapons fit for the flyable Su27S to make it the SM. With the flight models I was really talking about the missiles. NATO ones now implemented have much more detailed ones and it would be awesome if we got that kind of immersive behaviour from Russian missiles. I don't want to restart the versus controversy but let's assume you have two similarly performing missiles and one is a simplified flight model from WXP days and the other an advanced one written on a multithreaded processor it's a bit like VR meets PacMan in performance terms. Forget east vs west arguments, it'd still be cool if they were inferior missiles but just had that same level of coding detail in performance and then maybe there would be times when something that shouldn't have spoofed it but did because of a simple flight model, well at least those things won't happen if they do now. With the four wing pylons search I mentioned, I found two photo-stills during operations with them added: one had four rocket pods and a pair of R73 and the other had the R77, plus R27R and R73, oddly never saw a single photo of weapons on the wingtips, always either ecm pods or left bare. Most photos just have three wing stations each like the Su27, they still don't put archers on the tips at all but just carry a pair of short burn R27 and a pair of R73, that's the most common load configuration. There's one other, 4x R27ER long burn and a pair of R73, that and the one with the R77 was the most AAMs I saw on an Su33 coming off the deck, four MRM and two SRM basically is the heavy AAM loadout compared to like ten AAMs in a land based Su27 sortie.
  21. I know it's not the DCS focus but FC3 is still big among some of us simply for the sheer joy of flying Flankers and Fulcrums in the best form available, even if jumping from an Su33 to the DCS Hornet module gives a slight brain meltdown from key bindings to how do I fly this for reals? But FC3 is still pretty big for some of us too. At least while we wish for Flankers and Fulcrum clickables and were allowed to join the rest of DCS humanity. Are there current ED plans to do anything to help update FC3 for DCSW mission building purposes, at least? I mean in terms of say, more detailed modelling of Russian weaponry like the R27 to balance the attention NATO and obsolete munitions have undergone for their modules equipment in DCS. Would there be any chance Su27S version could be updated to Su27SM? Mainly delivering R77 capability as far as FC3 is concerned and afaik completed in VVS by early 2000s. I've even seen recent footage of Su33 carrying live R77, not dummies off Kuznetsov. Speaking about Su33 and Kuznetsov, especially in light of the new modelling with the SC module and DCS focus on carrier aircraft, how about filling out the Su33 a little with working support vehicles like the Ka27 buddy refueller and don't ask me how that works except the helo guns flat out and the Flankers sit upon stalling and everybody sweats a lot during the refuelling. Sukhoi themselves have been saying the Flanker D has Kh31 option since the 90s, although never seen them on a Flanker before the Su34. They are recently photographed and videoed with R77 however, logically this would follow the Su27 midlife update across the board but I haven't exactly seen newspaper headlines saying Flanker D has R77 or anything like that. Su25UTG or UBK or whatever the hell it's called, the carrier one. And more functional Ka27 with some combat capability, I mean there's no reason to have torp dropping in the game but you could have recon mission in ME and AFAC and certainly stick a HMG out the door and pretty sure they can carry rockets if you want to bolt them on. The versions aboard Kuznetsov are the 2 elint and fire director ones for the SS-N missiles on Russian cruisers and electronic recon of an enemy force, about 30 of the familiar ASW version with transport secondary role, can have an MG out the window and carries a torp or depth charges, and (six?) of the SAR version with the ASW equipment stripped out and has a dual role as an assault helo or air ambulance, carries rockets, HMG, armed marines or some stretchers and a winch. Kuznetsov uses them more than the Flankers. MiG29K, there was an FC2 mod (?). Is it adaptable? Could give India an in game fleet with a Kuznetsov class and their MiG29K with the phased array. Plus they still keep one or two on the Russian Kuznetsov doing trials and development work, word was a while back if the Russians planned keeping a blue water fleet in the future they would replace the Su33 with the phased radar MiG29K they sold to India. This is wishful thinking, involving some real module level attention put back into FC3 but it'd sure be nice. Anyway I remember lots of discussions about possible plans for FC3, and abandoned ideas, I was wondering what the current deal is for FC3 and its future from ED? I still just love flying the Su33 off Kuznetsov and the MiG off coastal bases, even if they are very confusing and a little annoying key binding and dated flight modelling and not the current standard of DCS modules. I don't suppose whoever made the Chinese destroyers in DCSW wouldn't mind doing a Russian one? Bit more versatile than the frigates and there are at least a couple left after the big post soviet everything must go sale.
  22. It's really good news though, we're going to be very satisfied with the module in all its details and rectifications it certainly sounds like to me. Bravo ED, personally still happy to wait and just looking forward to it.
  23. The threat of nuclear self-immolation aside it's arguments like these that make the aliens want to kill us.
  24. As far as I know resupply is generally an unlimited resource so long as one has access to a "warehouse" or in this case an ammunition store to restock individual gun magazines aboard a bomber as opposed to inaccessible fighter armament and therefore a finite, single magazine per gun. It would seem logical crewed gunnery stations have unlimited ammo given army trucks and warehouses offer unlimited restocking/resupply within the access radius. Funny story, related about the western front late war, you know what the Luftwaffe used to supply bombs to the very few medium bomber squadron fields still braving a sky literally buzzing with enemy fighters? FW190G. They modified them with extra long tailwheel and stripped them out to shorten a heavy laden takeoff run, and mounted SC1000 and SC1500 bombs under them. They couldn't drop them as a munition, they had to be removed by armourers at the destination airfield. It was just the only way to get heavy bombs to the bombers in the face of overwhelming Allied numerical superiority in every area en route. It sort of punctuates the only survivable form of bombing the enemy for the Luftwaffe in the late war was by using fighter-bombers and hence Hitler's thinking behind making jets fighter-bombers instead of interceptors, the latter which they were better suited to. But also means most fighter sorties in the late war on the whole were fighter-bomber sorties, relatively few were pure fighter squadrons.
  25. Quite correct about remarkable rate of fire for the 7.92mm MG81, although the barrels had to be changed out every 3 ammo cans of continuous fire IIRC (?). Much less often in bursts and that would be standard practise for German gunners in aerial gunnery school anyway, it's really only American pilots that habitually walked fire onto a target and that's because aerial gunnery school there specified laying maximum projectile volume onto targets as opposed to continental schools which taught conservative use of ammunition stores per target, this was mainly because continental birds generally had centreline armament with explosive filler or high rate of fire except the Brits, whilst American and British birds generally had wing armament with multiple MG, so they were schooled for gunnery differently. Germans didn't waste ammo. Marsielle routinely downed e/a with 1-2 rounds of 2cm and 30-40 of 7.92mm, a remarkable fact documented by his armourers, he almost always returned with kills and almost full magazines. He published lectures for Luftwaffe pilots which were circulated for training, even a waist gunner got his schooling from the experience of Moelders and Marsielle, so they're all taught this way and it gets refined and added to over time. (paraphrasing) Armourer's report, 5th June 1942, following a sortie in which Marsielle is credited with 6 confirmed kills, SAAF No.5 Sqn Kittyhawks, magazines upon landing, 10 2cm used, 180 7.92mm used. To give an idea of what all Luftwaffe aerial gunners aspired to.
×
×
  • Create New...