Q1E Development Update

@Cobra.... Well said. And well done.

Thank you so much Cobra! I'd really hope this F-14A altogether replaces the old crappy AI model we currently have in DCS at the moment

Hi, this, among other things, is meant under the point "jamming additions" in the roadmap at the end of the update.

Really looking forward for this, as jamming is pretty much nonexistent in the F-14 currently, which is not just an unfair advantage in multiplayer, but as a RIO this would also make A2A combat more exciting for me. I really hope you guys will find some ways to give RIOs some options to play around with anti jamming filters and such, despite the limited DCS EW framework and classification of EW stuff. :thumbup:

Excellent news Cobra !

Will the Phoenix update come together with TWS-A ?

Hi Cobra,

 

 

Might I inquire what the forcefeedback options mean in relation to Vjoy forcefeedback sticks? I use a brunner ffb base and before this update the f-14 ffb blows every other module which uses ffb out of the water. But I take it your adjustments dont work with my brunner ffb base because it uses Vjoy to interact with DCS?

 

 

Could you tell me if Brunner has contacted you to work out their FFB support? it uses plug ins and vjoy to simulate the FFB from DCS and its still in its infancy at some points although its an awsome ffb base for sims like X-plane, microsoft flight sim etc but it lacks capability in dcs still. Such as no stick movement dictated by the game. it will shake and such but trim is only possible via hardware trim.

 

 

 

Id love to hear from you if you guys have partnered up with Brunner as I think your F-14 module is one if not the best module all around and certainly with FFB. I can literally feel how much attention to the force feedback you guys have put into the F-14 i just cant experience everything the way you guys have programmed it.

Do you have current openbeta? The vJoy bypass thing has already been in there for a few weeks. We did not realize some sticks (like Brunner) actually make use of FFB via vJoy, so it sounds like we may need to reconsider this then. Part of the problem is that DCS gives no correlation between input devices and FFB, so the presence of any FFB device (including vJoy) registers as it having FFB, and the APIs to set FFB have no concept of which device to apply it to. However, if you merely have vJoy installed for other purposes (combining axes, or doing various other special functions), it was causing F-14 to try to apply FFB for trim, which only works if you have an actual real FFB stick for the input device. The simplest fix is probably just for us to remove the vJoy automatic bypass altogether, and let the user control FFB fully via the special option we already have in there.

Excellent news Cobra !

 

Will the Phoenix update come together with TWS-A ?

No, this was part of why the TWS-a was so delayed, we had to unentangle all the phoenix changes from the TWS-A changes, because the phoenix changes ended up not working correctly in multiplayer due to factors completely out of our control. We don't know when we'll be able to re-introduce the phoenix fixes again.

Really looking forward for this, as jamming is pretty much nonexistent in the F-14 currently, which is not just an unfair advantage in multiplayer, but as a RIO this would also make A2A combat more exciting for me. I really hope you guys will find some ways to give RIOs some options to play around with anti jamming filters and such, despite the limited DCS EW framework and classification of EW stuff. :thumbup:

We can do something, but it will be venturing into very speculative territory, which is not ideal for us. Concepts like jammer strength, type, directionality etc. don't exist in DCS, and of course ECM and ECCM etc. systems are highly classified. Jamming in DCS is basically an on/off thing, so anything on receiver side (the jammee, if you will) is totally made up, in terms of how much and what type of jamming it is perceiving, and whether or not its own radar can "burn through" etc.

Thanks for the update, I'm already "feeling the need..." :)

Yisss :thumbup:

Can't wait for the Alpha Cat:smartass:

Finally have the Tophatter Liveries matching the right Version of the F14:thumbup:

Thanks for the update. The only module I fly now so all improvements are most welcome.

We can do something, but it will be venturing into very speculative territory, which is not ideal for us. Concepts like jammer strength, type, directionality etc. don't exist in DCS, and of course ECM and ECCM etc. systems are highly classified. Jamming in DCS is basically an on/off thing, so anything on receiver side (the jammee, if you will) is totally made up, in terms of how much and what type of jamming it is perceiving, and whether or not its own radar can "burn through" etc.

I'm aware of the simplified on/off jamming simulation of DCS, but most other radar equipped aircraft in DCS have some sort of (pseudo) jamming effects shown on their radar displays. Usally it's just a simple jamming strobe for noise jaming (e.g. F-15C, MiG-21bis), while others have some sort of deception jaming effects that show false contacts on the radar (e.g. M2000C). The F/A-18C and F-16C are still awaiting the implementation of similar effects due to their WIP status. The F-14 should show at least some similar jamming effects, especially as there is a toggle button to display jamming strobes on the TID (so some functionality is there and shouldn't require too much guesswork). Otherwise it would be an unfair and unrealistic advantage for the Tomcat in multiplayer if the Tomcat would not suffer from jamming as other aircraft do.

Nice, so hyped for Jester-LANTIRN...

I'm aware of the simplified on/off jamming simulation of DCS, but most other radar equipped aircraft in DCS have some sort of (pseudo) jamming effects shown on their radar displays. Usally it's just a simple jamming strobe for noise jaming (e.g. F-15C, MiG-21bis), while others have some sort of deception jaming effects that show false contacts on the radar (e.g. M2000C). The F/A-18C and F-16C are still awaiting the implementation of similar effects due to their WIP status. The F-14 should show at least some similar jamming effects, especially as there is a toggle button to display jamming strobes on the TID (so some functionality is there and shouldn't require too much guesswork). Otherwise it would be an unfair and unrealistic advantage for the Tomcat in multiplayer if the Tomcat would not suffer from jamming as other aircraft do.

To be clear, the guesswork wouldn't be around how JAM/JET etc. is displayed on DDD and TID, we have good information on that (and even, interestingly, how said jamming strobes can be shared over datalink and used to triangulate a jamming source position). It's more about how to convert a boolean jamming value (the only info provided by DCS for a jamming source) from any particular aircraft into something resembling received jammer power. One could also argue that it would be unfair to apply some one-size-fits-all thumbsuck jammer power formula to all jamming aircraft, since they can have very different jamming capabilities, potentially independent of physical size even, e.g. say EA-6B compared to A-6E for example, or EA-18G compared to F/A-18F etc., but going down the rabbit hole of us trying to maintain some internal database of what fake jammer power to use for each jamming aircraft also becomes a bit ridiculous (given that AFAIK DCS itself does not model this in any way).

We'll come up with something, but it just will most likely stray much further from reality than anything else in our simulation, unfortunately.

To be clear, the guesswork wouldn't be around how JAM/JET etc. is displayed on DDD and TID, we have good information on that (and even, interestingly, how said jamming strobes can be shared over datalink and used to triangulate a jamming source position). It's more about how to convert a boolean jamming value (the only info provided by DCS for a jamming source) from any particular aircraft into something resembling received jammer power. One could also argue that it would be unfair to apply some one-size-fits-all thumbsuck jammer power formula to all jamming aircraft, since they can have very different jamming capabilities, potentially independent of physical size even, e.g. say EA-6B compared to A-6E for example, or EA-18G compared to F/A-18F etc., but going down the rabbit hole of us trying to maintain some internal database of what fake jammer power to use for each jamming aircraft also becomes a bit ridiculous (given that AFAIK DCS itself does not model this in any way).

 

We'll come up with something, but it just will most likely stray much further from reality than anything else in our simulation, unfortunately.

Which for DCS purposes is just fine, a jam strobe and lock delay until X range is still at least something and gives players more options in BVR combat.

To be clear, the guesswork wouldn't be around how JAM/JET etc. is displayed on DDD and TID, we have good information on that (and even, interestingly, how said jamming strobes can be shared over datalink and used to triangulate a jamming source position)

Man, that is a pretty cool capability (jamming triangulation).

Cheers for the detailed update, as ever can't wait to try out the A and Forrestal.

Guys, you're such PROS! Hats off! Your work is outstanding! It's probably the most complex and full product in the entire simulation market... keep up the awesome work!

To be clear, the guesswork wouldn't be around how JAM/JET etc. is displayed on DDD and TID, we have good information on that (and even, interestingly, how said jamming strobes can be shared over datalink and used to triangulate a jamming source position). It's more about how to convert a boolean jamming value (the only info provided by DCS for a jamming source) from any particular aircraft into something resembling received jammer power. One could also argue that it would be unfair to apply some one-size-fits-all thumbsuck jammer power formula to all jamming aircraft, since they can have very different jamming capabilities, potentially independent of physical size even, e.g. say EA-6B compared to A-6E for example, or EA-18G compared to F/A-18F etc., but going down the rabbit hole of us trying to maintain some internal database of what fake jammer power to use for each jamming aircraft also becomes a bit ridiculous (given that AFAIK DCS itself does not model this in any way).

 

We'll come up with something, but it just will most likely stray much further from reality than anything else in our simulation, unfortunately.

Fair enough, but I hope that when DCS eventually gets some sorte of EW modelling, around 2050 I guess, you would be around to evolve the jam/jet visualization to a more realistic realization.

Hey Cobra, awesome work as usual. As VR is so immersive and the pilots body is important for immersion, can you expand on the new pilots body? Will this be included for VR?

Cheers

Craig

Yes can we have some clarification on the progress of this

Hey Cobra, awesome work as usual. As VR is so immersive and the pilots body is important for immersion, can you expand on the new pilots body? Will this be included for VR?

Cheers

Craig

+1

So much detail in the Development Update, and nothing on the pilot body. ;)

Lets talk about the Forrestal CBG, do you plan some sort of Asset Pack after its release for example concerning naval units or most of them will be available at first ?

could you include some CGN, Virginia or California class ?

could you include some CGN, Virginia or California class ?

We have no plans for any ships beyond the Forrestal class right now.

That was a mouth full of read! But it's nice to see where things are right now....

 

A question on the simplified stall model, will it be a simple boolean logic as in stalled or not, or will it include "coughs" and "hick ups"? :joystick:

 

Thanks......and as always keep up the great job! :thumbup:

The stall model isn't currently a simple boolean, the severity of the flow reversal is variable and depends on many factors. The number of situations where the TF30 can stall is much larger than the F110, which will take some time to implement and test. I'll try to get the major ones in there for EA release though.

Thanks for the update. Is the Forrestal at all dependent on ED Carrier API or anything affected by the supercarrier? Specifically shooting to see if HB was able to solve the deck sliding issue and/ or cat launch issues that got much worse in 2.5.6.

 

And any chance of F-14D? Jk

We are trying to help ED figure out what the issue is. There are no forces we're applying from our side to the aircraft that would cause this behavior. It is somehow related to ED's ground reaction code or something they're doing while aircraft are parked on a moving object. Something seems to change that causes the sliding once DCS detects engine RPM above a certain value, and it's not anything on our side.

I kind of don't miss Jester. This new Chester guy seems like a cool guy,