All Activity

The new damage is ridiculous and has destoyed the ability to do CAS missions as bombs now kill friendlies 300+ metres away..meaning it's difficult go get troops close enough to fire...and be safe from friendly bombs....and you now blow yourself up when dropping retarded bombs at altitudes from which you should be safe. Nonsense. The lethal radius to a person for a 500lb bomb is about 20 metres.....in DCS it's now over 300 metres! The entire DCS damage modelling needs to be redone as it's an utter joke.

Those units are in the game already. The asset pack units are seperate

Yeah, that is an odd thought. It would be effectively spread across all modules, much like the modern assets, not linked to a single aircraft.

That announcement was about the AI units provided for free within the DCS core at the launch of the Corsair ... it said nothing about an assets pack. And adding a US$ 30 pack cost onto the price of the aircraft seems odd to me.

Does flying main ops weekends mean Fri, Sat, & Sun or a rotation of these days?

Roll the asset pack cost into the price of the aircraft please. You are needlessly fracturing multiplayer with (micro? macro?) transactions. The announcement at the end of May seemed like you had corrected course, but now you are completely walking it back.

Really need one in there. Not just for WWII, but for later scenarios too.

Indeed. Would love for it too work on AI too. I made a fleet defence mission. I had 4 Corsair doing CAP over the fleet at 4500 feet. Since the nerfing of the AI omniscience. The AI simply couldn't see and engage the japense torpedo bombers flying at 500 feet.

Well, for a SIM a monitor can never be too large I play DCS with the 57" version of the Odyssey since Nov 24. Looking now at a normal 27" monitor seems like looking into a narrow tunnel. You get used to a larger monitors pretty quick and if there will be even wider monitors available sometimes I am a potential customer.

Pacific Theatre of Operations 1944 Assets Pack Update Since the release of the free DCS: Marianas WWII map and the Magnitude 3 DCS: F4U-1D Corsair, we want to provide an update on the extensive effort being devoted to bringing this scenario to life with the PTO Assets Pack. Learning from some of the European Theatre of War scenarios, the PTO scenario is focused on providing an extensive order of battle for both US and Imperial Japanese forces in the summer of 1944 and to offer an accurate representation of the battle for the Mariana Islands and the Battle of the Philippine Sea. New player aircraft coming for this scenario will include both the F6F-3 Hellcat and the A6M5 Zero. Since our last update on this project, we can now share with you the specific air, land, and sea units being developed for the PTO Assets Pack, which owners of the existing World War II Assets Pack will be able to purchase with a 30% discount: PTO AI Assets: United States Aircraft F6F “Hellcat” SB2C “Helldiver” TBF “Avenger” SBD-5 “Dauntless” PBY “Catalina” P-38L “Lightning” United States Ships Enterprise aircraft carrier Casablanca-class light aircraft carrier Independence-class light aircraft carrier New Orleans-class heavy cruiser Baltimore-class heavy cruiser Cleveland-class light cruiser Fletcher-class destroyer Liberty-class transport Cimmaron-class oiler United States Ground Forces M4A2 Sherman M3A1 “Stuart” light tank LVT-4 tracked landing vehicle LVT(A)-4 tracked landing vehicle DUKW-353 amphibious truck US Marine Corp infantryman US Navy Carrier personnel US Navy seaman Imperial Japanese Aircraft A6M5 “Zero” D4Y “Judy” D3A “Val” B6N “Jill” Imperial Japan Ships Shokaku aircraft carrier Chitose light aircraft carrier Kongo battleship Mogami heavy cruiser Agano-class light cruiser Yugumo-class destroyer Kagero-class destroyer Kashino-class transport Imperial Japanese Ground Forces Type 94 Tankette Type 95 Ha-Go tank Kurogane Type 95 car Type 97 Te-Ke tank Type 97 Chi-Ha tank Type 97 ShinHoTo tank Type 2 Ka-M amphibious tank Type 1 47mm anti-tank gun Type 98 20mm anti-aircraft gun Type 91 10cm towed artillery Type 92 70mm towed artillery Type 10 120mm anti-aircraft gun Imperial Japanese Army Infantryman Japan Navy seaman Bye Phant

Bye Phant

Just loaded the C-101 practice missions and also loaded the required VPC Airfield Equipment Mod. Unfortunaly it CTDs DCS. Hopefully there will be a fix sometimes.

Not me, I purchased the Corsair as soon as I was sure its 3D shapes would not be encrypted:

And F-86. F-86's stick has no direct connection between stick and elevator or aileron surfaces (rudder pedals are still directly mechanically connected). It's funny, the F-86 stick works exactly like a spring loaded game joystick except trim moves its center position. Hydraulics sense the stick position and moves the surfaces accordingly. The only forces the pilot feels are the springs which are there to simulate stick forces. So its stick won't fall over on the ground either. From the pilots point of view he moves the stick and trims as if it were a previous generation "traditional" mechanically directly connected stick. This is mentioned in the manual, maybe not clearly but a DCS'er uploaded the F-86 original mechanical drawings and there one can follow how it works.

i know it is not on the table, but it would be nice to have the sea missile work without the need of mission editor.

i havent even tried to see if mi24 moving map in the new maps!

THank you for the Help folks. Also for the explanation Gilligan

All good brother. No offense taken at all!!!! I don't think you are tracking here Sierra Delta. ASC asked the community for suggestions. My comments were not unsolicited suggestions or a forced wish list of expectations. I respect your reasons not to listen to Enigmas interview, but ASC made the call to interview with him and ASC requested feedback from the community so that is what I provided. The comment above is a bit unjustified when a 3rd party dev is asking for that exact information. You said it yourself, 17 years of tracking ED's roadmaps and setting expectations, and I have been there for all 17. I have seen all the promises from the kick starter WW2 inheritance changing over time to many others. I am not knocking ED or their crew at all, but 17 years is a long time to learn to walk. We have come leaps and bounds from where it all started and I am no knocking ANY of the progress that has been made, I am simply stating if we wait for ED to do it all, it will be another 17 years. My suggestion to allow ASC to help develop some of the core simulation in DCS is not unrealistic. I can tell you from experience in the industry, all major government contractors that develop these aircraft in real life, are not the sole developers or proprietary owners of every system or software in those aircraft. There are many hands that own proprietary information to each platform. Those major contractors that build these aircraft require the assistance and contribution of those sub tiers, or we do not continue to develop the most lethal platforms in aviation history. I think ED could inherit the same concept. It would require the correct contractual language to allow it to happen, but it is nothing new that does not happen daily in the defense industry. Again, look at what is in the pipeline currently from ED and what they are still working on finishing alongside developing the F-15C and F-35A. We have been crawling for a long time, and I would say we have already started walking. I feel it's time to pick up the pace with additions to DCS that fill in some of these voids with empty maps and no period specific units to populate said environments. I won't go off in the weeds on this subject, but I feel myself and the community have a right to suggest these options to a third-party dev if in your words, ED is still learning how to crawl and walk.

Thank you all for the replies, as I said this is for a friend. I had no idea of the game, made some searches but with your inputs in came to an understanding that it consumes a lot of ram. Changed the RAM and went for 2TB. Also took a look into the CPU, switched to the 9800X3D. For the GPU I still have the same, it should do the work right? Also, is this monitor good for this game? PCPartPicker Part List: https://pt.pcpartpicker.com/list/bzbnv4 CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D 4.7 GHz 8-Core Processor (€499.90 @ Chipman) CPU Cooler: Deepcool AK620 ZERO DARK 68.99 CFM CPU Cooler (€69.99 @ PC Componentes) Motherboard: Gigabyte B650 AORUS ELITE AX V2 ATX AM5 Motherboard (€175.90 @ Chipman) Memory: *G.Skill Ripjaws S5 64 GB (2 x 32 GB) DDR5-6000 CL30 Memory (€236.00 @ PCDIGA) Storage: Samsung 990 Pro 2 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 4.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive (€169.90 @ Chipman) Video Card: XFX Speedster MERC 310 Black Edition Radeon RX 7900 XTX 24 GB Video Card (€1044.02 @ PC Componentes) Case: Lian Li LANCOOL 216 RGB ATX Mid Tower Case (€81.34 @ PC Componentes) Power Supply: Thermaltake Toughpower GF3 TT Premium 850 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply (€150.40 @ Switch Technology - OOS) Monitor: Samsung Odyssey G9 G93SC 49.0" 5120 x 1440 240 Hz Curved Monitor (€1133.73 @ Chipman) Total: €3561.18 Once again thak you all for the replies.

Module: Mi‑24P Hind Build: DCS latest as of Aug 2025 Resolution: 2D (1440p/2160p) Severity: Usability/UX issue Reproducibility: 100% The Mi‑24P doppler based moving map displays measurements for course, distance, ETE with a very large, fixed-size font. -On routes with multiple legs labels overlap and become unreadable. -The issue is most pronounced in the Large Map view of the Mi‑24P map. Changing the map scale does not affect label size. -Zooming does not improve legibility, as the font size remains the same. -Currently it is hard or near impossible to to use on anything but the simplest routes. A scaling/declutter option would make a huge difference. I attach an example image (Outpost Campaign) Pls fix this bug, the Hind deserves it.

I wonder how many, like me, are waiting for the release of the PTO assets before purchasing the Corsair? I would guess I'm not alone and when the pack releases there will be a bump in Corsair sales to go along with it.

Maybe a file got corrupted by coincidence. I will watch the track tomorrow and see if there is anything out of the ordinary visible - thanks.

Hi, I need help with figuring out what's wrong with my system and why I may not be getting the performance I should in DCS (especially multiplayer). I have a Ryzen 5600, RX 6600, 64GB DDR4, and 2TB M.2 SSD, 1080p flatscreen. Based on benchmarks and statements from people with similar PC's as mine, it seems like I should have no problem running DCS multiplayer servers like Contention at medium-high settings. However, the reason I'm here is because I struggle to maintain a consistent and bearable framerate with basically the lowest graphics settings. For example, sitting on the SC deck in the hornet on contention results in a stuttery fps ranging from 30-60, but usually below 40 especially with other aircraft on the deck. Sometimes, I start a flight with around 60 fps, fly my mission with decent amounts of stuttering and fps drops, then land back on the same SC to find my fps has halved from when I first spawned in. It isn't a SC specific issue, it happens at all airports too but I use the SC most of the time. I can't pinpoint this to the GPU or CPU specifically because they seem to interchangably be labeled as the limitation in the in-game FPS monitor. I do notice that my VRAM usage is almost always at a maximum in multiplayer (all textures low), and that at least one of my CPU cores is at maximum utilization until I disable and reenable it in task manager. My main background processes are Opentrack + AITrack, WinWing, Task Manager, and sometimes Chrome. I've tried many things I've read online such as process lasso, DCS repair, clear shaders, etc. but nothing has really helped. I use optiscaler so that I can use DLAA but I know that it's not the problem because it existed before dowloading optiscaler. I can share logs and screenshots as needed. My hardware is benchmarked and performs well in other modern games. My settings: I would really like to know if my system is truly underperforming, if I should tweak some things, and/or if DCS is the problem.

As far as I know, the poor readability is actually „correct as is“….but I still agree, that the maps should be more available to all theaters and at least some reasonable zoom levels. as for „custom maps“: I agree, that this would be nice as well, but really it would still be a workaround. What we really need in that regard is the ability to make drawings from the ME visible in the HSI/SA page.