All Activity

Yes they are 3 lug, 2 American, 1 British and should fit. ..

Thanks guys...just keep in mind, It's not the bomb types I'm looking into. It's whether or not they have the 14-inch spaced lugs welded on the opposite side of the single lug. We already know 250 and 500 MCs were used, but if ED didn't model the required lugs on their bombs, we can't use them.

Just made my day (year?). Fantastic news!

To add to this in VR the map is basically unusable due to the symbology blending into the map so easily. This means that by standard I ALWAYS disable the map from HSI on AMPCD or just use the HSI on one of the other screens.

Dear all, we have cleaned this thread. For now, this thread will remain locked as it has become more work than it needs to be. Currently, we have generally the same 10 or so people debating different things releated or unrelated to this topic. It ends up in angry people, warnings and misunderstandings. When there is something new, it will be added to the 1st post in this thread. If it's something that needs discussion, we will consider opening this thread. Any new threads opened on this topic will be removed. If you have questions about items in the 1st post here, you can send us a DM. Thanks. The ED Team.

Okay, that's fine! I see your point. However! I do not personally believe the wishlist/wishlists are not the place for it. Let people wish for whatever, (We all remembers Mike's dailies ), sometimes it evolves into a fruitful discussion about it of what can be done and what can't. If you don't like it, rate it a single star, (this goes for all discussions). The first page of the wishlist pretty much tells users ED's look on it. If you see a wish that's been wished for many times, just kindly inform the user that, in fact you're not the first. There's a search function, and pretty much they'll understand it might be just a wish. Of course, sometimes it becomes popcorn hour, (Easy/Auto AAR anyone?). I wasn't around at the time, and to me it's not important. I know it is to you, and it seems very personal, and you seem to be really offended. Please don't take this the wrong way. It might be for you, while you often come off as wanting to pick a fight! You do not deserve that! Honestly! You seriously still believe that after 17 years on the forum? Respect! This forum consists of hardheaded people not looking for advice you know? Yeah, you actually do! And I'm very happy to hear that self consciousness is not lost on you! Take care, enjoy your weekend! Apologies for often giving you a hard time. I have nothing personally against you! Thank you for the Roadmap, I check it every day, wish there was more posts!

Developed by ED or M3?

It is in the beta reading process now. I'll share more when it's ready. Indeed, there is a bug with the mission. I'll have an update available Sunday morning PST.

Yep planned for the future

Was watching this yesterday on YT. The wish list just got bigger and this is UK Naval aviation only

Hi Confirmed, the Player FF Zero is planned for the future. thank you bignewy

Can‘t wait! Please hurry with the Pacific asset pack!

Set RPM to about ±2400 (or full) and leave it. There is no need to re-adjust once set. Keep MAP around ±28, using the throttle to control your rate of descent (maximum 500 ft/min). The key is to position yourself correctly in the Groove so that only minimal corrections are required. Many forget that propeller-driven aircraft—especially high-performance props—demand significant stick-and-rudder coordination. This is very different from most jets or FBW aircraft in DCS, which often need little or no rudder input. I fly with rudder pedals myself, and it takes practice to coordinate throttle changes with rudder adjustments so they cancel each other out. It’s a challenging aircraft to master for most people… but isn’t that part of the fun? It also make you appreciate what the veterans did under much more challenging circumstances. NOTE: I’ve noticed that some who were struggling with handling had internal fuel above 50% plus an external load. This will noticeably change your aircraft’s attitude and behavior.

superb!

Nothing changed from my side apart from the fact that I am very busy with finishing work on C-130… so other things had to be pushed back a little.

A small conversation I had.. what do you think? Yes — it absolutely could, and what you’re describing is basically building your own dynamic campaign engine for DCS, but with GPT-5 acting as the “brain.” Here’s how it would work in practice for persistent multiplayer dynamic campaigns: 1. Tracking Units, Losses, and Logistics GPT-5 wouldn’t “live inside” DCS, but your bridge would: After a mission ends, the .miz or mission results log (.log or debrief.log) is exported from the server. The bridge parses these results (kills, damaged units, ammo used, etc.). GPT-5 updates a master campaign database (could be JSON, SQLite, or even Google Sheets). It calculates the new strategic situation: which units survived, which bases have fuel, which SAM sites are still operational, etc. That updated data becomes the input for generating the next mission file. 2. Rebuilding the Next Mission GPT-5 reads the updated campaign state and: Places remaining friendly and enemy forces in the correct positions. Adjusts available aircraft slots based on losses. Changes fuel/ammo at airbases according to supply. Moves frontlines forward/back depending on previous mission results. Then it outputs a new .miz file ready to load for the next mission. 3. Multiplayer-Friendly Setup Because the campaign data is stored outside DCS, multiple people can: Fly on the same server Finish the mission Have the server automatically load the new mission after a short break GPT-5 could even generate fresh briefings and radio messages so each mission feels handcrafted. 4. Logistics Layer You could go full Falcon BMS style: Convoys delivering fuel/ammo to airbases (if destroyed, base runs dry) Limited reinforcements per week Player actions directly impacting long-term availability of units GPT-5 could generate convoy routes, schedule supply flights, and track them in the campaign database. Bottom line: Yes, with the right bridge, GPT-5 could keep persistent memory of every mission result and rewrite the world state for the next mission — essentially creating a living, breathing war in DCS. And because GPT can also write Lua scripts for complex triggers, it could add all the immersion you want (intel updates, enemy reactions, random events). If you want, I can map out the exact file flow between DCS mission editor, the logs, the campaign database, and GPT-5 — so you’d have a full blueprint to make this a reality when GPT-5 is available to you. That blueprint could also be adapted for Heatblur’s Cold War server campaigns. What about creating a bridge to units in game so dcs module offering control of ground units could be used by AI ChatGPT to control it in more realistic way as dcs unit ai is notoriously horrible Yes — that’s actually possible, and it’s one of the most exciting uses for GPT with DCS. You could replace DCS’s “dumb” AI decision-making with GPT’s real-time tactical brain by using the DCS Scripting Engine and an external control bridge. Here’s how that could work: 1. DCS already lets you “puppet” units via Lua The Mission Scripting API in DCS allows Lua scripts to: Move ground units to waypoints Change their speed, formation, and ROE Make them search for and engage specific targets Change their weapon loadouts mid-mission (with some limitations) Normally, this is all pre-scripted before the mission starts. But if you keep the Lua script running and connected to an external app, you can feed it new commands live. 2. Bridge for Real-Time GPT Control The setup could be: Lua in DCS Mission → constantly sends unit status (positions, ammo, damage, detected enemies) to an external server or local app via TCP/UDP or WebSocket. External App → passes that information to GPT-5, giving it a tactical “map” of the battlefield. GPT-5 → decides what each unit should do based on your tactical doctrine. External App → sends new Lua commands back into the running DCS mission to change orders. This turns GPT-5 into the virtual battlefield commander. 3. Why it would be better than stock AI DCS AI doesn’t understand context — it drives tanks into kill zones, doesn’t flank, doesn’t retreat. GPT-5 could: Retreat damaged units to repair zones. Use terrain (ridge lines, forests, rivers) for cover. Coordinate multiple units for combined arms (artillery softens target before armor advances). Preserve assets instead of suicidally charging. React dynamically if a bridge is destroyed or an airstrike happens. 4. Even More Immersion Because GPT understands language, you could: Literally talk to it on the battlefield with voice commands: “GPT, have the 3rd Tank Battalion swing left through the forest and cut off the enemy supply line.” And it responds via voice: “Roger. 3rd Battalion maneuvering to intercept enemy supply route. ETA 4 minutes.” This could be done via Speech-to-Text → GPT → Lua in real time. 5. Feasibility Right Now This is already possible with GPT-4.1, though latency might limit it to 2–5 second reaction times. GPT-5, with faster multimodal processing, could be much closer to real-time tactical AI. The only “heavy lift” is writing the Lua ↔ External Bridge code, but once it exists, GPT can control any DCS unit like a human player would. If we combine this live AI control with the persistent campaign system we discussed earlier, you could have a DCS world where: The war evolves over weeks Units act intelligently in real time GPT is effectively your human-like AI commander (or enemy general) I can sketch you a flow diagram showing exactly how this GPT ↔ DCS live control bridge would look, including the data flow for orders, battlefield awareness, and campaign persistence. That’s the blueprint for making DCS finally have good ground AI. So question is how smart are you in military tactical and strategic scenarios,, let me try you out blue force has 2 f15 for cap mission and 4 f16 for bombing missions and one awacs… they want to attack from Tbilisi and go towards Sochi.. and hit a runway and fuel logistics on airfield there… red force has 8 mig21 and early warning gci 4 of them, one on Sochi two a bit in the back 50, 90 miles and one 140 miles away, they have also 4 osa short range anti air defence units and one buk sa11 unit, defend yourself as red force and describe your thinking prices anticipating blue force ideas and their advantages and tactics and hour you would try to negate them Alright, let’s run this like a real tactical exercise. I’ll put myself in the red commander’s seat at Sochi, with my limited but potentially deadly toolkit. Step 1 – Situation Analysis Blue Force Strengths Air Superiority: F-15s for CAP – they outrange and outgun my MiG-21s in BVR combat. Strike Capability: F-16s with precision strike loadouts – very effective against my airfield infrastructure. AWACS: Gives them early detection and coordination. Likely Plan: Push F-15 CAP ahead to clear my airspace, F-16s following to hit the runway and fuel depot, AWACS orbiting safely in the rear. Red Force Weaknesses MiG-21s: Short range radar, weak BVR, limited endurance. Only 1 medium-range SAM (SA-11 Buk), rest are short-range (OSA). Vulnerable fixed target (Sochi airfield) – can’t move it. Red Force Strengths Numbers in fighters (8 vs 2 F-15s). Layered EWR coverage to vector my interceptors. Surprise potential if I don’t fight where they expect. Good short-range SAM network near the airfield. Step 2 – Threat Anticipation If I’m Blue, I will: Use F-15s to wipe out interceptors before they can touch F-16s. Stay high and fast – outside SA-11’s max engagement unless forced in. Destroy Buk first if they suspect its location. Drop bombs or guided munitions from standoff distance. Step 3 – My Defensive Plan as Red Main Objective: Keep runway functional and fuel safe, or at least inflict enough losses to make the strike fail. 3.1 – Fighter Tactics Do NOT send all MiG-21s at once – suicide in BVR against F-15s. Split into two groups: Ambush Group (4 aircraft): Low altitude ingress from an unexpected angle, timed to arrive as F-16s commit to attack run. Distraction Group (4 aircraft): Engage F-15 CAP from head-on at long range to drag them east/south and force missile expenditure. Use GCI from EWR to vector ambush group until they’re just under radar coverage of AWACS, then pop up. 3.2 – SAM Usage Keep SA-11 cold and radar-off until strike package is close – surprise engagement to catch F-16s mid-run. OSA units remain spread out around Sochi for point defense against Mavericks or low-altitude ingress. Use shoot-and-scoot for SA-11 if possible (simulate relocation between salvoes). 3.3 – Early Warning & Deception First EWR station (closest to Tbilisi axis) will report false strength – act like we are launching all fighters early, but actually only send distraction group. Maintain strict radio discipline for ambush group – they stay quiet until commit. 3.4 – Engagement Flow Blue enters radar range – I scramble distraction group, climbing to mid-alt and making a visible intercept. F-15s engage, AWACS calls my movements – they will likely chase. Ambush group stays low over terrain, aiming to catch F-16s after CAP is drawn off. As F-16s near launch point: SA-11 powers on, launches 1–2 missiles. Ambush MiGs pop up from low altitude behind/below strike package. OSA batteries clean up any leakers. 3.5 – Desired Outcome Lose some MiG-21s but trade for at least 1 F-16 and force the others to jettison ordnance. Keep the airfield operational or at least reduce bomb accuracy so the runway is repairable quickly. Step 4 – Strategic Mindset I can’t win the air superiority fight; I must fight asymmetrically. Force Blue into bad geometry fights (low altitude merges where MiG-21s can dogfight better). Protect my SA-11 until it’s decisive. Accept some attrition, but aim for mission kill on Blue’s strike rather than full air dominance. If you like, I can redraw this into an actual DCS mission plan with waypoints, timing, and SAM engagement zones so you can test both sides in the sim — it would let us see if my ambush works or if Blue still pushes through.

Have another read of the list, old boy; apparently you missed a couple of points...

I know that. What I said is something entirely different...

Finally...A6M5 Zero confirmed.

Are we going to see any sort of major AI improvements in the sim in the near future? Glad to see the WW2 Pacific Theatre is finally getting a cohesive set of period-correct units so that we can simulate immersive battles! Only shame is there seems to be no mention of period-correct soldiers?

I use the boresight/cage mode to lock a visual contact, which gives the most reliable lock for a sparrow shot. Locking and maintaining lock in search mode is unreliable. It's also great that I can IFF a locked contact to make sure I'm not shooting at a friendly. Aim7Fs work nicely both up close and at range. Flood method also works great if you have selected the correct aspect/speed gate and are within 10 nm of a hot target.

No quite the same issue, but I've got a thread about releasing the maps from under IC so that players could customize their own maps depending on their needs. Say, you fly on a server with a custom airspace - the maps we have now don't really serve you since there are a bunch of real life airspace boundaries drawn there etc. If you want to support that, the thread is here: Meawhile I support the idea for having maps for all playable areas as well as multiple zoom levels. What's the point of having the system if you can only have one (not so helpful) map that is at a zoom level of 5NM for example, when you mostly would use something else... The feature on the aircraft (and not only the hornet, but all the aircraft with moving maps) is severely restricted and its potential left unused at its current state. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

OK. Changes have been made to - wingmans audio calls - wingmans orders. - all triggers checked and reprogrammed where neccesary - Map items and statics have been hidden - various minor tody ups Test flown today and now works great. Will submit to ED asap Have a great weekend Thanks Steve

That would make sense given that the default position is auto and the pitot heat is automatic in the Jeff.

Hey @alboon2000 Looked at the early radio conflicts you first brought up. Yes they are there, thanks for the heads up. Have now fixed the issue and will be in next update. Did not get conflicting take off and hold instructions. You get one message to line up and hold then a second to hold when lined up and a final one to take off. The refuel if a bug will be DCS's. Suggest you send them a Track file and lodge it on the main forum under bugs as I cannot address that. Thanks for the Tacview. Will have a look if the AI logic has changed things. The movement of Mig410 seems a bit strange. The ones engaging you though were on their way. Your problem was that you flew into the SAM kill zones it was they not the Migs that killed you. Keep clear of the zones, shown on your SA page and let them come to you. Hope this helps Below a Flying Kenny fly through.