All Activity

Not a big deal, but mickey time and take off time are missing from the briefing for Mission 4. Seems like these should be there since there is a precise time-on-target. DCS version 2.9.18.12722

That explains why the first A-8 losses in the west were a full four days after the date of the report.

huh.......good catch! I recall it happening.

Vietnam War Vessels 2.0.0 This release is a major update of the Vietnam War Vessels mod. With VWV 2.0.0 comes a new directory structure, where all assets have a [VWV] prefix in the folder name. This makes it necessary that you first uninstall the old Vietnam War Vessels 1.x.y completely. We welcome the USS Enterprise, CVAN-65, in its 1966 configuration, to the fleet. The first nuclear driven carrier has been derived from the modern USS Enterprise, and takes a place of its own now. The complete launch and parking system has been overhauled, leading to a hopefully more immersive experience. The second new addition to the mod is the A-37 Dragonfly. This iconic aircraft of the Vietnam War is now available for AI use within the virtual DCS sky. Please take a look at the Known Limitations below! Updates, Ships Knox class - FF icons are used instead of DD BB-62 New Jersey - CC map icon in use, better helicopter landing on the deck, new custom shell for main armament CVA Essex and Bon Homme Richard - model improvements, nick name as short display name for Bonnie Dick Many ships - sound updates to gun fire Updates, Planes A-1 Skyraider - split into A-1H (with bridle cat support) and AD-4 (without), add Napalm bombs from A-4E-C mod, add toilet bombs to all pylons, rework flight model to take off from Essex ‘44 with 70% loadout H-2 Seasprite - use of a new model, split into SH-2F, UH-2A, UH-2B, UH-2C classes MiG-21MF overhauled nose gear, support for RATO take-offs O-1 Bird Dog, add engine nozzle definition, Flight Model change for more realistic take-off RA-5C Vigilante - Flight Mode change, more lift at low speed Known Limitations CVA-31 Bon Homme Richard - Player controlled helicopters slightly move forward on the flight deck F-8 Crusader - Aircraft is intended as static and for limited AI operations - Player control is experimental at best, but largely untested and unsupported - Carrier launch and landing operations are not supported for player aircraft, only AI - Unknown how to drop bombs as player aircraft - Variable incidence wing is not enabled - Collision shell not reliable under player control - Nose wheel rotation disabled MiG-17F "Fresco-C" - Player control is almost untested and unsupported - Collision shell not reliable under player control - Damage susceptible when placed as static H-2 Seasprite - Wheels don't touch the ship deck - Landing gear is deployed multiple kilometers away from landing spot Fletcher Class Destroyers with FRAM II upgrade - Bridge and mast are WWII style RA-5C Vigilante - The plane is too large for regular parking spots, best to use as single plane on the runway MiG-21MF "Fishbed-C" - Textures are work in progress - Gear up location is pretty bad A-1 Skyraider - The new bridle disappears during launch - The precision of dropping Napalm is abysmal - Takes off like a spaceship from land - Tiny Tim rockets seem never to be launched A-37 Dragonfly - Flight model is raw and has not been tested much - Only one pilot ejects, ejection somewhat broken O-1 Bird Dog - The propeller blur is static CVAN-65 Enterprise - Catapult hookup spotty, sometimes planes start to drift - Parking spotty, some planes start to drift - Probable inability to sync INS when taking off cold - RA-5C and F-14 Tomcat slightly too large for safe aircraft operations when taxiing - The shoot power of the catapults seems insufficient at times - No support for night operations, e.g. no lights Download (Github): https://github.com/tspindler-cms/tetet-vwv/releases Alternative download (Google Drive): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/16pUuupD08L36KnD6vDel5VRlmwwftX5o?usp=drive_link Enjoy, The Vietnam War Vessels team

J-10C would be very OK for everything but F-35/F-22. It even has excellent combat record.

Flying RL combat aircraft is no fun, 'cause you could die and all that stuff. Flying a sim is, because we get to pretend to be flying the real stuff without any of the risks/constraints of the real world. I simply wanted to draw attention to the fact that any disparity in air-frames could affect the sim negatively, when it comes to multi-player bam-bam arena. I also don't know when this "no balance" argument became an integral part of the sim. LOMAC started as a perfectly balanced platform, but I guess this got lost somewhere along the way.

FWIW I was considering picking up the Mirage at the next sale (as it was usually a 50% reduction) right at the same time a couple of years back that Razbam stuff started not appearing in sales (which with hindsight was the first sign all was not well).

Hypothetically, should Heatblur indeed be able to obtain the rights (code, docs and all) for the F-15E, they could very well hire (full time or project-based) the devs that made the Mudhen for RB, and just be responsible for overall project management. That wouldn't interfere with their schedule all that much. Those devs could finally get paid fully for their hard work. And who knows, maybe the gentleman who re-created the AN/APG-70 might be able to take a look at its cousin, the APG-71 (wink wink, nudge nudge)? Hypothetically.

The A-10A did not have any autopilot at all. Pilots crossing the Atlantic en route to the middle East in 1990 for Operation Desert Shield had to hand-fly many hours in lose formation with tankers. What fun that must have been! The Low Altitude Autopilot with its fairly basic modes is thus a big step forward and allows pilots to spend more time heads down and focus on the mission. While I'm not sure if it actually played a role, USAF leadership was never a fan of the A-10 and has tried many times to get rid of it. The request for additional funds might not have gone down well with them. Plus there are probably technical reasons. None that I know of. Just to clarify, are you mad at Fairchild Republic or at DCS? Because DCS is a simulation, and adding an autopilot that doesn't exist on the real aircraft would put it in fairy tale land. And criticism towards the aircraft's manufacturer is a bit ill-placed in a forum about its simulation.

D3W_Foothold_SiriaExtendido_v47.162-20250727-181918.trk

That's all this is: just an error in the briefing / kneeboard diagram.

BTW, Your whole hoopla about the two access panels being required is exactly why FW-190A8 production was delayed. They installed those access panels before pushing the type to the Luftwaffe. That is why deliveries took so long from production in the first FW-190A8's.

100% correct.

Hi, We've been having these crashes recently on Kola, random, reported by multiple clients in multiplayer. We're still uncertain if it's caused by the Kola map or DCS core itself. Can you please investigate? Thank you. 2025-07-27 18:19:17.284 INFO EDCORE (16768): # -------------- 20250727-181917 -------------- 2025-07-27 18:19:17.284 INFO EDCORE (16768): DCS/2.9.18.12722 (x86_64; MT; Windows NT 10.0.26100) 2025-07-27 18:19:17.285 INFO EDCORE (16768): D:\DCS World\bin-mt\edCore.dll 2025-07-27 18:19:17.285 INFO EDCORE (16768): # C0000005 ACCESS_VIOLATION at 00007ffc8fb44cdb 00:00000000 2025-07-27 18:19:17.286 INFO EDCORE (16768): SymInit: Symbol-SearchPath: 'D:\DCS World\bin-mt;', symOptions: 532, UserName: 'kevin' 2025-07-27 18:19:17.286 INFO EDCORE (16768): OS-Version: 10.0.26100 () 0x300-0x1 2025-07-27 18:19:17.286 INFO EDCORE (16768): 0x0000000000024cdb (edCore): b2DynamicTree::RemoveLeaf + 0xBB 2025-07-27 18:19:17.287 INFO EDCORE (16768): 0x0000000000024656 (edCore): b2DynamicTree::MoveProxy + 0xB6 2025-07-27 18:19:17.287 INFO EDCORE (16768): 0x000000000003e6b4 (Effects): Effects::loadShipWakeConfig + 0x2304 2025-07-27 18:19:17.287 INFO EDCORE (16768): 0x000000000003efae (Effects): Effects::loadShipWakeConfig + 0x2BFE 2025-07-27 18:19:17.287 INFO EDCORE (16768): 0x000000000016a281 (Visualizer): smSceneManager::DestroySceneManager + 0x11261 2025-07-27 18:19:17.287 INFO EDCORE (16768): 0x0000000000170f4b (Visualizer): smSceneManager::regLua + 0x61BB 2025-07-27 18:19:17.288 INFO EDCORE (16768): 0x000000000015595c (Visualizer): smCamera_Implement::getClipRegion + 0x1C3BC 2025-07-27 18:19:17.288 INFO EDCORE (16768): 0x000000000013f74c (Visualizer): smCamera_Implement::getClipRegion + 0x61AC 2025-07-27 18:19:17.288 INFO EDCORE (16768): 0x000000000015a242 (Visualizer): smSceneManager::DestroySceneManager + 0x1222 2025-07-27 18:19:17.288 INFO EDCORE (16768): 0x0000000000033171 (edCore): ed::thread::_get_current_thread_id + 0x71 2025-07-27 18:19:17.288 INFO EDCORE (16768): 0x00000000000037b0 (ucrtbase): wcsrchr + 0x150 2025-07-27 18:19:17.288 INFO EDCORE (16768): 0x000000000002e8d7 (KERNEL32): BaseThreadInitThunk + 0x17 dcs.log-20250727-181917.zip dcs.log

Them having "cojones" or not is not the topic here. Reality is that there is no balance in real world. So F-35 or EF2000 or any modern jet can fit in any scenario.

At first, thank you @Dangerzone for this thread! Many good points one can start with to discuss. To cut a long story short, there are seven points that have personally helped me reduce stuttering: 1. Enable hardware acceleration in W11 and in the BIOS REBAR. 2. Disable all unnecessary programs running in the background. 3. Have at least 64 GB of system RAM installed. 4. Install DCS and the disk cache on the fastest SSD drive. 5. Set the latency to Ultra and vertical synchronization to off in nVidia CPL. 6. Use a CPU with the lowest possible latency (definitely not INTEL). 7. The most important point is to adjust DCS to the minimum FPS the graphics card can deliver so it always achieved and ensures smooth gameplay. Regarding the RAM optimization shown in the video presented in the thread: I believe that it may be helpful for people who have less than 64 GB of RAM and only slow hard drives. What you see in the video is not a bug in DCS World or Win11, it's the opposite. You can see how Win11 makes optimal use of RAM, because RAM is always faster than a hard drive. Why wouldn't you want to use your RAM as much and high as you can? My own tests show that Win11 does everything right, and when files are no longer needed and others need to move up, the area that is no longer needed is immediately cleared. As I write this, I am on the Germany map. I pushed up to 55 GB RAM (the highest reading I could get) by pressing F11 and after that I stayed at one place. And now only 32 GB are occupied. This is how it should be. You don't have to use any extra tools, if your settings are optimized for your Hardware ( VR differs here a bit ;))! Many “problems” are simply based on believing what is specified as the minimum requirements for DCS World is enough to play the game with all the great graphics. This makes DCS World playable, but far from optimal. For me, the biggest FPS hogs are, in order of importance, the following, if FPS fluctuates: 1. Terrain shadows = Flat (biggest impact) 2. Clutter = 0 (big impact) 2. Trees = 0.5 (big impact) 3. Water = Low (medium impact) This is what I was able to test for myself. First optimize the hardware, then optimize DCS World for the hardware! There are no magic settings that can turn poor/unoptimized hardware and software into a miracle cure!

Maybe a typo in the briefing coordinates? Will give it a spin during the week and see what is going on

: ( yeah... The Harrier was the next in line for me, just before this stuff started. I'd guess there would be a hit on trust once again if older modules started being sunset instead of leaving anything towards the 'replacement' purchase. I'm not too pessimistic about this possibility... but again, "anything is subject to change".

Has nothing to do with TU engines or the fact a hybrid motor was built. It simply states if an FW-190A8 gets a BMW801S engine, it becomes an FW-190A9. The production line making engines is completely seperate and not linked to any airframe. It just says once they start making engines, if one goes on an FW190A8 then that airplane is going to be called an FW-190A9. It does not say a damn thing about who installs the engine. That eliminates the R4 designation. http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/variants.htm

Who is it to say they would be interested in taking it on anyway?

Not the AI, but rather the full module of the A-6. Dumping a totally new module onto a third party is asking for trouble since those teams have their resources and workload allocated for their own projects. Plus, what if they got the MiG-19? Something that lacked the hype that the Mudhen got? You're basically being asked to become the custodian of it, but without the benefit of potential returns.

I really hope no one makes that happen, and no one outside HB should have any authority to make that happen. This is fairy tale, imo. Messing with Heatblur's project schedule/flow to introduce a foreign body into their workflow should be forbidden. HB are currently the biggest beam of hope on 3rd party around and things get reaaally slow when projects are too much for teams to handle. The SE is nice, but I'd rather leave the people in charge of maintaining the F-4E and the Tomcat alone.

Problem of RL conflicts is that those nations that you have mentioned don't have "cojones" to attack anyone that can match them in air combat, so yeah F-35 vs "flying trash cans" is historically correct. This does not mean, however, that it's ok to have the same situation in a sim. Also stealth aircraft are not so stealthy to long wave radio emissions, and I am not sure that DCS takes this into account.

That sounds like a reasonable long-term option on paper ... but let’s be honest: with ED and other devs already stretched thin on current projects, creating entirely new versions of all four modules would likely take years. Especially if they aim for high quality and feature parity. So while it might be a solution eventually, it doesn’t help those left in limbo right now. People paid for working products. And will some people be able to trust ED to provide them with substitutes... which I cannot believe.