All Activity

+1

It would be interesting to know what inspires CH now, what military units and what era

The misconception is, "stealth" is actually "largely reduced radar signature", but not invisible or can't be seen on radar...

Are you using v-sync?

Does it work against A2A Radars / Missiles as well?

Thanks. Here's what I see: I see the same on the F/A-18C and M-2000, but not on the AH-64, A-10C II and JF-17, so it's difficult for me to point at a driver issue. (Unfortunately TAA is a no-go because of blurred labels)

@Reflected your advice worked! Thank you. Here's what I did. The "zone" for the radio transmission was linked to my player aircraft in the setup already. My Unit name was the same as the group name, so I added a "-1" to the unit name to make it unique, just in case that was the issue. The zone itself was tucked pretty far away over Iran and I assumed by linking the zone to the unit in the config, it automatically associated itself with the aircraft (like a moving zone). I dragged the zone directly over the aircraft (like Sedlo did in the video above) as your advice was to place it a mile from the aircraft. I thought this was odd, but figured "what the heck can it hurt". Moving the zone over the player's plane did the trick and all transmissions came through loud and clear (was already using a power setting of 10000 on the Radio Transmission trigger). A few additional questions: 1 - Does the "Overlord_Radio" zone travel with the player's plane for the entire mission? Does the zone mimic a moving zone once its placed no more than a mile from the link unit on the ME map? 2 - Where do I sign the petition to ED to fix this radio degradation? Its pretty bad. Overall, I knew I had to be doing something wrong in the setup. Thanks for the assist, Reflected!!

Only problem is, I don‘t own any WW devices and have nothing left to disconnect. This website is simply a typical MS product - crap…..

Throwing in my two cents and purely personal views here, for the WP/red side the L-39 is a good trainer and, despite being pretty much abandoned by ED, it can do everything you would expect from a training aircraft in DCS. The Yak-52 take-off and landing characteristics are totally off in my view, so I'd not use that one. It is also pretty much abandoned by ED. For Bluefor training, the C-101 is constantly bugfixed and updated, but I cannot stand the engine sound, and - maybe I am doing something wrong here - it needs a horrendous lenght of runway on take-off. I also do not like the Spanish labels in the cockpit of the trainer version (the CC has English labels). It also does not have a TACAN receiver. That is why it is not very well suited for NATO elementary flying training. The MB-339 on the other hand has very good flight characteristics, comes with a TACAN receiver and an English cockpit, so in order to simulate NATO basic flying training, I'd go with that plane. It is true however that upates and bug fixes on the MB339 are very rare, but as far as I can see, there are no real show-stoppers currently. @Bananabrai In my squadron we recently had the discussion whether we should introduce a basic flying training program utilizing a training aircraft, but several long-time community members said it's not worth it. They said they had experienced similar attempts in other squadrons, but the result was very dissatisfying, as most people - even if they have no effing clue of how to fly an aircraft properly the military way - simply do not want to "waste" their money and time on a training aircraft, they want to start flying their fighter right away. They also said, many candidates simply do not want to put in or underestimate the time and effort needed to really train what it takes to be a fighter pilot, so after the IPs invested quite some time and work into candidates, the candidates would jump off and play something else or turn to another aircraft and squadron or whatever. The general consensus was that if a squadron really wants to invest resources into a training program for nebwies, it should be on the fighter the squadron is flying from the very beginning, because that would increase the probability of candidates actually finishing the training, and it would not deduct resources from the squadron's main flying activities. Since it's only a "game" where you can crash a thousand times and restart, that was seen as the more realistic approach towards the mentality of the DCS community. That said, I still absolutely favour the idea of a realistic training program for new candidates, but I have to accept that the DCS community is what it is.

Bembridge Field on Isle of Wight is missing the "e" on the map, and it shows "Bembridg". Not a big deal at all, I've just been mentally correcting it subconsciously for two weeks, and you guys probably have been too, thus making it nearly invisible.

If we want to recreate the 1990ies Balkan crisis, United Nations intervention and subsequent KFOR mission, the key challenge for NATO and especially the pilots, was the Rules Of Engagement and rigorous need to identify combatants and ensure no harm to civilians. At the moment it's nearly impossible to recreate something like this in DCS. You can add some static cows or "US sailors" or deck crew to the neutral faction, or place an airshow crowd, but that's not doing much to make a convincing "decision making process". I love the idea of recreating real life scenarios, but with the current assets available it's not really recreating the actual challenge, rather we will get another "if it moves shoot it - If it's green it's hostile" style conflict. What I would love to see, is either OnReTech or ED adding a couple civilian assets, most desperately needed: - civilians on foot with NO weapon - the "Technicals" we have currently, but WITHOUT the guns, basically the plain trucks - a couple normal cars (or at least an updated VAZ-2109 with a couple different colors) - (optional) a handful of buildings (or base components for buildings) that match the map style, so mission creators can add target buildings/objects easily and dynamically. The later being a key option to dynamically spawn static buildings in multiplayer missions. Maybe there could be a collaboration with one of the community asset creators like currenthill, Massun92 or integrate Eightball's civilian vehicles to add those kind of assets? We don't even need everything at once, just an "Insurgent AKM" as "Insurgent civil" without the weapon or the Technical (scout HLDshk) without the Dshk would go a long way. What do you think? Can it be done?

The bumpy road of texturing. Graphics are not exactly my forte (if you haven't guessed that by now). I tried to apply @Urbi's advice, but the first result was a tad bit discouraging. Especially as I have no clue what went wrong: I then re-did everything and the result, while not exactly great, is much better: Unfortunately the model is not too easy to re-texture. To help with the effort I asked Substance Painter to export a 2D version of the textures: https://tetet.de/dcs/mods/EC-121-SP-2D.zip I hope it will help Eddie and others to re-texture the plane. Cheers, TeTeT

diciamo che Villafranca veronese e Rivolto potevano fare un sforzo

Just checked it, horrible as well... Same with MSAA 4X.

I think I have found the culprit. The joystick button I use as TMS seems to be a bit capricious especially when I use it for "TMS Forward Long", so sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Thanks to your post I know now that i need to watch for the ""TDC" indication in the bottom left of the HUD. I apologize for reporting a bug while it was poor precision of my VRP stick.

Thanks for your brilliant work @currenthill! As far as I understand the plan is to migrate all Military Assets to DCS core step by step. Will there be further update CH Military Asstes mods releases with reduced content as this will be migrated to DCS? Will older CH Military Assets mod releases still be useable with newer DCS releases?

definetly yes, obvious ( i did exactly that )

... not sure how it will end mate ghhghggghhg

They’re both multithreaded, always run DCS from the bin folder, the bin-mt folder will be removed in the future.

Hi CH, and thanks again for your truly excellent work! I looked for the two files to replace, but I couldn't find them... or rather, I didn't find them with the file names you attached to the post. Could you please indicate which files need to be deleted and replaced? Thanks again.

Would be great if this mod can make it's way to DCS core, really versatile asset, most fun ship in game IMO, also good fit for a lot of maps and eras, and is great advertisment for DCS engine. ED should take a look.

Indeed the BE has some advantages to it, that the vacuum cleaners don’t. Including but not limited to an afterburner…. The L-39 is a fine aircraft, I have nothing against it. But when training is your goal you have to make a decision. There have been lethal real world accidents caused (or supported) by the fact that the accident pilot has transitioned from eastern instrumentation to western standards (mainly the attitude indicator). Usually in the DCS environment I have no problem transitioning across aircraft (west and east), however I very rarely fly in real IMC. I did a night flight in heavy clouds across the whole map once in A C-101 (so the whole flight from T/O to landing was IFR). Without AP and the poor inherent stability the DCS FM offers, that was a VERY exhausting and frankly quite scary task. I can easily imagine how a Russian Attitude Indicator would have killed me…..

I am aware it's a demo display at an airshow, but let's assume someone wants to fly such a display at a virtual airshow, it's definitely something the AH-64D can do IRL and did regularly. As usual for these kind of displays, there's no weapons attached, likely the minimum amount of fuel necessary for the display plus safety margin and they sure had a lot of training, flying this display by the numbers. There are other videos around, but I find this one interesting, as it should be the same timeframe of "our" DCS AH-64D model. There's a maneuverability demo with an 'A'-model, as well. This one has even some loadout. But(!) I am pretty sure these are not necessarily maneuvers for a typical combat mission. Last ditch, desperate evasion, but only if something went very wrong. The only thing I personally ever used in DCS as an armchair pilot, was a deliberate split-S from altitude to get away from a AAA dead ahead. Luckily I had enough altitude, what might have not been the best tactical approach in the first place. For DCS I think ricktoberfest's advice is good. Use speed / momentum with cyclic and resist pulling the collective before the rotordisk is mostly pointing downwards. If you roll do it smooth and keep the rotordisk loaded. And if you have 16 Hellfire, full gun ammo and a full fuel tank, aerobatics is not a good idea...

With the new Balkans map announced it seems that this one will cover parts of southern Germany in low detail. I love to see whole Germany including the southern in high Detail modeled in DCS. That would be ideally included in our Germany map, but an implementation in the Balkans map would be fine for me as well. Maybe Ugra Media and OnReTech come together and find a solution to include whole southern Germany in on or the other map. Ideally map borders should be coordinated to not overlap each other for coupling them in missions and campaign then nicely. Hopefully both devs might consider. Thank you !!

I'm a bit puzzled. You say "the HUD was never set as SPI". Shouldn't it be "SOI" rather than "SPI"? In step 1. I use Coolie switch up short to set the HUD as SOI. Is that the wrong thing to do?