All Activity

Hi Ugra Media! You've made an incredible map with Germany. But I have one question : Why the base map (F10 or editor map) as tiles with same color than the "city" layer ? This can be confusing because it makes half the map appear "urban" even though some farmland areas appear as cities (even though they aren't). Screenshot example:

Hi to all that responded. Nothing new is running in the background, that hasn't always been there. The graphic first appears on the main options screen (Mission, Mission Editor, Campaigns etc.) and then stays there regadless of what I do. The pattern that's produced follows the position of where the sound originates. I've disabled/quit every app that's shown in Task Manager to no avail. The history is that it was working fine, but due to lack of storage space, the latest update failed. I then transferred the entire ED folder to a new drive, and the graphic appeared when I ran DCS. I then removed the app, and deleted the entire ED folder. I then reinstalled DCS from scratch, but the graphic remains!

Aside from door gunners no one is ever shown in the back of the Huey. You don't see embarking troops. At the moment DCS doesn't support transport tasks with visual troops or cargo inside the airframe. The community provided custom skins with modelled persons in the back but that is a static effect. It is as bad as the normal behaviour – only the other way round. These static models remain visible when the (logical) troops are commanded to disembark. I don't know if these skins can be changed in flight between en empty chopper and a crowded one.

First of all I didn't comment so that you can approve or understand. It doesn't matter whether you approve or understand, the reality is what it is. As usual, you're arguing with me just to be arguing with me. The title of the post states very plainly that a "rtx 4090 becomes rtx 4090 48gb". This is not accurate. By the time that shop produces a 48G 4090, it has little to do with the card they started with. And I'll say it again: A 24G 4090 cannot "become" a 48G unit, the substrates are not the same, period. Physically not possible, end of discussion.

We dont have present time flyable modules in the first place, our lot 20 Hornet is already phased out from USN, and retiring from USMC, same with Harrier, F-15C retired this year, except Jeff we dont really have FF module that can play modern redfor, and even Jeff is old, no AESA pre blk.3 variant, A-10C kinda fit, but have fun against 2020's threats, same can be said about Apache facing manpads proliferation and UAV that can attack helicopters, any realistic scenario would be painfull with existing assets. What DCS really lack, are early 2000's threats, our early XXIc modules have to face boring early 80's Soviet SAMs, new CH assets will be filling this hole a bit, but it's a long way.

Missions 10 "Gunnery" and 11 "HVAR rockets" had wrong mission success parameters, resulting in a too low score. This is fixed in both the complete campaign download and in a hotfix for the two missions: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3346482/ Thanks to @Scotch75 for pointing it out and sorry for the inconvenience (it is my first campaign, so a big learning process) The recording (and the accompanying on screen text) says "When you are out of ammo, you can RTB". It is just a note to the player, what do, when he is done firing his guns or rockets.

I don´t know if anyone would have great fun in playing a combat flight sim that represents the 2025 battlefield. BVR from hundrets of miles away in an F35, F16s degradet to hunt shahed drones, and combined arms with randomly exploding collums due to dji drones. My desire would be a vietnam theatre where we can use our Phantoms, Migs and Hueys like its meant to be. And new modules from that time like the Hun, or F105. Aircrafts that actually need to be flown by the pilot. That said I would also appreciate more from the late 90s/early 2000. Since we are about to loose the Strike Eagle I am realy looking forward to the FF Eagle and the Typhoon. And I would agree that some newer SAMs would be nice.

Hi Developers and Drivers, I've had a slight problem with the trigger setting where if the aircraft reaches a certain altitude, a message is suppose to pop up. The parameter is: *Aircraft is higher than 9000 feet MSL-> Message to Group What I found is: *Aircraft reached 29,900ft (~9000 meters) -> Message comes up Is there a way to fix this wording or change the parameters to actual feet? Much appreciate it - Toffee

Mh that's sad. And not really understandable why the developer should ghost you after you have already provided all the files and stuff. Anyway thank you for your reply Sir. I really hope it will be implemented one day. You amazing work and all the effort you put into it deserve the publicity and recognition.

F-15E S4 Стал неуязвимым

Es gibt einen Kopf links an der Seitenleiste mit einer Liste der Triggerzonen.

updated for 2.9.19.13478

The data mine does show drag index of some objects DL: 6 BRM-90 pod: 10 C-802: 9.4 Fuel tank 800L: 5.7 Fuel tank 1100L: 6.1 SPJ: 2.6 WMD-7: 4.3 AKD-10: 2 SD/LD-10: 2.2 GB/6: 10 LS-6 500: 8 LS-6 250: 8 LS-6 100: 1.7 PL-5: 1.6 C-701: 4 Durandal: 0.7 Launcher: BRM-1/AKd-10:4 SD-10 single pylon: 2.6 SD-10 dual: 6.14 C-701: 2.5 C-802/fuel tank pylon: 9.4 LS6-100: 1.7 LS6-100 dual: 8.5 LS6-250: 4.9

Thanks for the words! Happy Flying!

For sure! The devs will be reviewing the QV parameters and working on revisions to improve performance based on user feedback. Please file a support ticket, our engineers will reach out to you shortly.

RWR Export would be very nice

Hallo, vielleicht finde ich hier Hilfe. Folgendes: Ich habe eine Mission erstellt und habe Triggerzonen gesetzt und um diese auf der Karte im Editor nicht mehr sehen zu wollen, versteckt. Wie bekomme ich diese versteckten Triggerzonen im Editor wieder zu Gesicht? Danke …

I haven't tried Pimax or Quest 3 so can't comment on the sweet spot other than it's a huge improvement over the Reverb. I've been running a G2 for five odd years at 60hz without reprojection at around 3600 per eye resolution plus OXRTK with 60% CAS. This provided a very good image in general. The BSB2 I'm running at 3560 per eye in DCS with Quadviews making up for the extra 15 frames, so I'm getting similar performance with a much crisper image using the same DCS settings. Once they get the foveated eye tracking online will have a lot more headroom to supersample. Without any experience with the super high resolution headsets from Pimax etc, all I can say is that the clarity is impressive and I'm very, very happy with how DCS looks in the headset, particularly in night missions. Yes there is persistence/glare in certain scenes, which is a real shame, but for me only annoying if I focus on it. Definitely loses marks though on this point. With Iracing I was running the G2 at 90hz, so with the extra 15 frames to spend I've been able to crank up the resolution on the BSB2 to 4300 per eye. Looks incredible and tbh I couldn't ask for much more clarity wise. No noticeable difference in smoothness going from 90hz to 75hz. Tracking I'm working on. I only bought one base station which is ok for Iracing, but for DCS it gets jittery when looking sideways more than 45 degrees or so. Have ordered another base station which hopefully should be enough. Best thing about it is the comfort. The headset is so light I can just put it on and leave it on then do all the settings, alt tabbing and faffing that sims demand in Steam VR dash. As someone who needs to use reading glasses this is a major QOL improvement over the G2. I haven't tried Virtual Desktop.

@currenthill : Thanks again for the official release of all these wonderful assets. I've been waiting so long for some of these units in DCS! For your next official DCS asset pack, would it be possible to include your infantry packs? I belong to the 06MHR, which is one of the largest European helicopter squadrons, and we have tons of transport helicopters that would love to have greater tactical utility by transporting soldiers equipped with Javelins, Kornets, or snipers, or even your mortars (which are air-transformable). This would be a real game-changer for our Chinook, Huey, and Mi-8 pilots. The biggest flaw in official DCS assets has always been its lack of diverse infantry; this is even more noticeable for the specialized modules in the CAS, and even more so for the transport helicopters. Adding ATGM & Sniper infantry would be a real game changer for squadrons like ours!

I don't really understand what your objection is to what @AngleOff66 said, since you seem to be agreeing with him or her that it is not that complicated (for Chinese experts) to create a new PCB for a 48 GB card. I assume that everyone understands that you can't just turn a 24 GB card into a 48 GB version by watering it regularly and giving it some fertilizer. Of course, some extra memory modules need to be added and you need a PCB that can connect those to the GPU chip. This seems to be missing the point, since @AngleOff66 is not arguing that someone should set up a conversion factory, but that the ability to turn a 4090 24 GB into a 48 GB version, proves that Nvidia could manufacture those or let AIBs make them. Now, the video is not actually needed to prove this for those in the know, since Nvidia has already been selling pro cards with the same chip as the 4090, with 48 GB. So of course they could also sell a 4090 with 48 GB as part of the consumer line. First of all, this comment is directly countered by the video, where Chinese vendors consider it a sufficiently sustainable market to develop a custom PCB for and offer it as a product. There is also enough of a market for them to show up on eBay: https://www.ebay.com/itm/376271640799 Secondly, you are ignoring market segmentation, monopoly practices and market manipulation. So it's not necessarily the case that there is no market for a 48 GB 4090, but rather, that Nvidia doesn't want to offer people this option, but instead wants them to buy the pro cards for double the price or more. Nvidia segments their lineup by memory and is known to retaliate against vendors and AIBs that don't do what Nvidia wants. So from the perspective of a US/EU company, it is probably more sensible to buy a pro card with 48 GB, like the RTX 5880 or 6000, than a modified card that may result in Nvidia putting the company on a support and sales blacklist. However, this is not a free choice based purely on the merits of the product, but a choice driven by market manipulation. You can't simply conclude that these companies would make the same choices if Nvidia would allow AIBs to make 4090's with 48 GB, and if Nvidia would properly support those products with drivers and...support. The math for Chinese companies can easily be different, due to them (as a country) being on a sales blacklist already anyway, they may benefit less from Nvidia support due to language issues and thus may need to be more self-sufficient due to it, their shenanigans may be more opaque to Nvidia by being much more isolated from Nvidia in various ways (for example, a large Silicon Valley company is likely to have workers move to or come from Nvidia, so their internal secrets may become known to Nvidia that way), they may feel protected by the Chinese government, etc, etc. Thirdly, you ignore that the BIOS/drivers probably don't work well for gaming on these modified cards, so that means that they are only viable for AI/business use. Of course, Nvidia could easily release a 48 GB card with proper BIOS/driver support. Surely interest by gamers would increase a lot if such a card would actually work for gaming. Ultimately, the only way to truly prove or disprove the viability of such a product, is for Nvidia to allow such a product to exist, which they don't. You can't just draw conclusions based on a manipulated market. For example, when the Iron Curtain was up, Eastern European countries claimed that their people were very happy with the Trabant/Yugo/etc, but once customers were allowed a free choice, they showed that the sales on the manipulated market didn't actually match their real preferences.

For me anything over about 45 FPS is good enough, 60+ is lovely. I realise it's a personal thing. With Quadviews, I'm normally over 70FPS. I've managed to switch off reprojection or whatever it is that locks you to 45/60/90/120 FPS and I find it much smoother with the FPS being able to range. With reprojection I always found a noticeable jitter when looking left or right and seeing scenes with lots of moving objects ie the terrain moving accross your vision.

I am saying this since years. Then all the "it must be 1:1 the real aircraft, otherwise DCS world and the whole world itself will crash down - nogo - never argumenters" fall over the forum and Discord in destroying the idea with their infinite wisdom. That really became boring. It is a wonderful idea, and I really would love to fly it. At least FC level, but better of course in a more detailed level.

Drones? There are drones in DCS. Even some flyable mods.

As CH now has collaboration with ED, I would love to see other teams have it too, like the MAM and CAM guys. Wish granted.

This is just a personal opinion but I find the way Heatblur communicates quite frustrating: giving us a trailer and some screenshots 4 years ago and then nothing... Even if the plane is taking longer than expected to develop, it would be nice to have some news on the progress (other screenshots or messages from the developers about their work). We are all looking forward to having this beast in our hands!! In any case, thanks to HB for their work.