Leaderboard

I would love to see a fully detailed civilian or unarmed helo as a free download for new players. Similar to the P51-TD. Might be a good way to get more players

I follow a thread on rcgroups about Eflite's new RC P-47 that's coming out in a month or so... There was an interesting discussion about how fast a radio controlled warbird should fly to be considered "scale." One group wants a plane that does nice ovals in the sky, with an occasional loop and roll.... While the other group wants bigger electric motors and bigger batteries for near-unlimited vertical climbs and blazing speed. Kind of reminds me of the octane discussions here.... It made me realize that sometimes you forget that a warbird at an airshow is a relic, and flown much "safer" than it used to fly. I wish I could have seen them in their prime! Anyways... There were two posts that I really liked... So I want to share them here.... Mind you.... The facts may be slightly off... May be biased... Etc... But I like the enthusiasm and they're written well. ---- post 1 ---- I typically fly my fighters scale, too. But I'm talking about how they were flown in combat on extremely high-octane fuel, hopped-up & tweaked by their crew-chiefs. NOT how they're usually flown at airshows today - as frail antiques with hard-to-get, extremely expensive replacement parts for their engines. I prefer to fly them like they were flown by combat pilots, who pushed them far-beyond "factory spec" in order to survive. Take the Jug, for example. None of the Jugs that are still flying today even have an intact WEP system. Many of them don't even have a functioning turbocharger anymore. In combat, it was not uncommon for crew-chiefs of late-model Jugs with the paddle-blade prop to crank the turbos up to a staggering 60 pounds of boost at WEP. That's 3,800 HP. At 3,800 HP, a Jug could hit 500 MPH TAS in level flight without even breathing hard. Using the compressibility flaps to pull out of a near-transonic dive, it could zoom-climb nearly straight up for ~20,000 feet! The last time I saw a Jug make a real balls-to-the-wall pass at full WEP with the turbo screaming like a banshee was back in the 1980s. It came in from a high-speed dive & pulled out at nearly 550 MPH down-on-the-deck. It streaked by, with the insane screech of a turbocharger the size of a coffee-table spooled-up to 20,000+ RPM following hundreds of feet behind. The turbo sounded just like a jet engine, and was nearly as loud! The prop literally tore the air apart with a metallic ripping sound as it went supersonic at the tips, with the unmuffled R-2800 @ war-emergency-power bellowing so loudly that it shook me right to the core. The shock-waves from the prop-blades combined with the R-2800's open exhaust literally pounded my chest - similar to how a Top Fuel dragster pounds your chest during a run (albeit not quite to that extent). That's how I like to fly my fighters. Joel ---- post 2 ---- Thanks, guys. I remember how these birds used to be flown at airshows 3-4 decades ago, before the parts became so scarce that nobody dares to fly them balls-to-the-wall anymore. So it makes makes me sad when I hear people talking about "flying scale" like WWII fighters are typically flown at airshows today. That is NOT scale flying for the world's best air-superiority fighters! They were the Ferraris of the sky! Putting along at 300 MPH & maybe gingerly performing a slow roll or conservative loop is about as "scale" for a WWII fighter as driving 50 MPH in rush-hour is "scale" for an F1 car. And having a dad who flew 'em in combat, and having the honor of meeting his squadron-mates at a Devilhawks reunion back when they were still young enough to remember the details of their missions gave me a completely different level of respect for what those guys went through, and also for the Jug. Sure, the Jug has always been my favorite. After all, my dad flew 'em in combat. But when I heard every single pilot at the reunion say that the Jug is the reason they made it home, I had much more reason to be in awe of the plane & those who designed it. My dad's FG flew exclusively CAS in Brenner Pass, which was known as flak alley because the stuff came up at you, down at you, and also in at you from the sides. They pulled so many Gs coming out of their power-dives with the compressibility flaps that they routinely blacked-out for a few seconds. See the pic below for an example of the terrain over which they flew every day. The life-expectancy of pilots who weren't flying Jugs was measured in weeks. To a man, they all believed that they would not have made it home if they would've been flying any other fighter. Some of 'em also flew air-to-air combat with other fighter-groups before they were assigned to the 350th FG. Most of those guys had also flown P-51s and/or P-38s, and a few had even flown Spitfires. Again - to a man, every one of them said that if they had to do it again, they'd rather fly the Jug in air-to-air combat than any other fighter. And they weren't just being sentimental, either. They all said the same thing: Without question, they'd take the Jug's superior firepower, unmatched ruggedness, and superior speed over the tighter turn radius of the P-51, Spitfire, and other more nimble fighters because they could compensate for the Jug's poorer turn-fight performance with tactics. They told me that no amount of tactics could compensate for a lack of ruggedness or firepower. They learned energy-management techniques which allowed them to gain an advantage over anything the Luftwaffe could throw at them. With the paddle-blade prop, they could easily out-climb the Bf 109s & FW 190s. They could also out-turn the German fighters above 18,000 feet. And they knew that they could always break off the fight by hitting WEP & dropping the nose. Absolutely nothing in the war could catch a Jug in a power-dive. Not even an Me 262. And that's without cranking-up the boost. When the crew-chiefs cranked up the boost, the plane became all but invincible in the hands of a skilled pilot. They said the same thing that my dad had told me when was a little kid - hitting hitting the water-injection & pushing the throttle past the stop to full war-emergency-power shoved them into the seat so hard that they felt like they'd been kicked in the ass by a freight-train. Joel

P.S. Есть кои какие дополнения к видео, чтобы взлетать проще, всегда держите переставной стабилизатор на 1.5-2 с помощью клавиши RCTRL +Ж, и настройку джойстика так же проведите в таком положении, на высоте около 1-2 км и на скорости 400-500 км/час.

It's more or less on the expected price curve actually, and you get a lot for the bargain. I know, like all those other crappy planes that 'do too many things', such as F-15E's, Su-35's, Rafales, Eurofighters etc. It carries a pretty significant load, it essentially takes to the enemy what an F-18 or F-16 would haul there, all WITH stealth. Without stealth, the delivery capability is greater than that of those planes. It isn't multi-role, it is a single-role aircraft: It is a strike fighter, and like pretty much every other bloody aircraft on the planet, it is capable of hauling weapons that aren't meant to be used for strike, so it can do some other roles, too. As for 'losing stealth' ... who cares? There's a time to use it, and a time when it's not really needed. That's interesting, given that none of that is factually happening. It's pioneering a new way of production. There's no question that there is a corruption involved here as well as poor management, and that was legally addressed - but that's a different matter to the changing development philosophies. Guess how some of the major aerospace companies design their new airliners now? Yup. Same was as the F-35. New ideas require debugging. It's not cheap up-front, it pays off in the long-run. That is in fact incorrect. There's no radar out there that renders stealth ineffective. And it's low frequency radars, but ok, I can see how this can get confusing. Here's a hint on how 'ineffective' stealth is against low frequency radars: An F-22 can fly right up to an AWACS and whack it. The F-35 isn't that much less stealthier. It's not that the AWACS can't 'see' the stealth jet coming. After all, stealth reduces the range at which you can detect that thing, it doesn't make it invisible ... on the other hand, that range is so short that it qualifies as 'too late now'. Here's another hint: Why is everyone else trying to build stealth fighters now? Or at least stealth UAVs? I know, I know, the Chinese made this magical radar that can see stealth, but their stealth fighters will work against the crappy US radars, which, despite having stealth fighters to train with/against, have never been updated to deal with low RCS targets! Because it does all those things you think it doesn't. And FYI, I know how to read GAO reports too - in fact, I read the GAO reports, not someone's intepretation of them.

If multiplayer mission was saved with the prepare mission tool in Mission Editor, it will save the default FOV for the machine it was created on, every client is forced to use this FOV on connection. It is a server side issue, and will need the host of the server and mission to edit the mission and delete the CONFIG/View folder out of the mission itself, so that it will then use the clients FOV settings on connections. Regards, Ian

I hope this will answer for most your questions:

Mig-15, F-86, Mig-21 FFB Подскажите. Долгое время летал с TM Warthog, а на днях нашел на балконе MS SWFF2. Подключил. В Mig-15, F-86, Mig-21 нет ни каких эффектов FFB кроме центрирующей силы. При этом в BF-109 и Mustang все работает, другие модули пока не проверял. Вопрос - косяк у меня или в "сторонних" модулях FFB пока не реализован? Заранее спасибо! PS. Ну вот наконец-то зарегился на форуме, спустя 10 с лишним лет с выхода Lock On, с тех пор и летаю. Исправление почти 20 лет, забыл про Flanker...

not implemented yet! you can easily test yourself.hit R-Ctrl+Enter

Technically, anything that happens before 2.0 can be considered a prelude to 2.0. Orville and Wilbur's first flight was also a prelude to DCS 2.0. :D

В раздел Скачать->Документация неплохо бы добавить не только "Быстрый старт А10С" :smilewink:

Вставлю свои пять копеек - я вкладку "Форум" нашёл далеко не сразу =D Если бы оно было на видном месте - было бы получше. Ну, как мне кажется.

Не, ну это всё понятно, но не начинать же людей учить летать после того, как только сам летать начал в DCS.

Смотрю его иногда.

OCULUS RIFT DK2 BIGGER HUD Hey guys just found this AWESOME:pilotfly: i coulnd not read the hud in my dk2 now i found to change the hud so you can read it Go to: C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Mods\aircraft\A-10C\Cockpit\Scripts\HUD\Indicator\HUD_definitions.lua if you want it for other plane or heli just go under aircraft and instead of a-10c pick your plane/heli then open with notepad then in : Line 5# you find this new_K = 73.5 --44 edit the 73.5 to 34 and you can read the HUD like a god :thumbup: the line should then look like this: new_K = 34 --44 if you want it bigger just make the 34 smaler lets say 28..... thx to PeterP

I'm not particularly a lover of the F-35, but is this the best military journalism can do? The Wording in these articles is on par with British tabloid media - the F-35 wasn't designed as an A-10 replacement as people tout. It has a wide range of shortcomings but it sure as hell is more useful and survivable in the modern battlefield than a slow single-role attack aircraft. The A-10 is a great aircraft, but it is not a strike fighter and thus cannot be compared to such. Everyone knows a dedicated platform is usually better at its function than a MRCA, but if the latter can still perform the job to a good standard it's time to let go. F-35 critics need to attack it for what it is, the next thing I'll see is a "APACHE HOVERS BETTER F35 SUX" headline the way things are.

Рекомендую Асус Н-97Plus. Я не любитель гнать. Винда-пиратка 64х встаёт без проблем. Слышал о мелких проблемах с биосом, но я сразу обновил и всё ништяк. Для гона можно взять и получше - прогеймер например.

Difference is that a version of the F-14 is only in use by one other country (only a handful at that, and without support contracts), and all the rest have been retired from the US inventory. None are flown by the US military in any capacity. The F4 on the other hand is not only still in US use (QF-4 etc..) but very much still a front line combat aircraft in a number of others, and it'll have various support contracts going on between said operators and US Defence Contractors via the DoD, plus sharing of technology etc... Take that into account and it's pretty easy to see why they'd be okay with one but not the other.

I am happy to report that the issue has been fixed in the latest update (1.2.16.38741), as you can see by comparing the quick test I just did with the earlier ones (like post #32): Now you can see that before, when the nozzles were open, the velocity decreased in a straight line, no matter the RPM, indicating no change in thrust. But now, the acceleration can clearly be seen to depend upon the RPM. Thank you for fixing the issue. By the way, this has also fixed the taxiing problem (where the aircraft would suddenly jump forward at 80% RPM), so now taxi will be a lot easier.

Смотри папку _backup.... там моды и все изменённые файлы после восстановления\обновления

I would just like to chime in because I've noticed a common thread in this community. It's been bothering me for a while, but I've held my tongue until a post in this topic finally pushed me out of silence. It seems to me that some of you have lost sight of rational expenditure for what is, after all, a game. Now, what you do with your money is nobody's business, and I'm not talking about that, but there has been some pressure on fellow DCS pilots, either subtle or peer pressure, to spend larger amounts of money on hardware and it's usually centered around joysticks. In most cases this pressure seems to stem from a perception that that that is how it is supposed to be for whatever reason, or from some other reason, but the end result is it appears as pressure to do that to be an "actual" part of the group, or belong or fit in or, in extreme cases, not to be mocked. The members in question need to remember that for example the Warthog, the so-often recommended or pressured purchase, costs a larger slice of monthly paycheck for way too many Europeans, and in the case of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe it IS the entire monthly paycheck! Not all of us have the privilege of pulling in thousands of dollars or euro per month, thus having the opportunity to spend 500 euro on a gaming peripheral is to too many just a ridiculous thought. In way too many cases many people are struggling to get through the month as it is... Costs of life are rising rapidly while paychecks are either stagnating or falling. And with no jobs and destroyed economies it's hard to get into a better financial position. Even the X-52, which is sometimes seen as the lowest acceptable standard around here, is pretty expensive by our standards. Last time I checked it cost cca 120 euro brand new for the cheapest version and when I tracked it I never saw a used one go for less than 60 eur on any of the EU eBays. While the ironic thing is, you don't need the most expensive joystick to be a good pilot. One of the best pilots I ever met, which was in IL-2 Cliffs of Dover (a sim where flight models are more sensitive), used a several years old Logitech joystick that costs cca 40 eur new... And he regularly massacred players with set-ups of over 500 eur, some even 1k eur... We are talking about a WWII full-in dogfight simulation with engine management (or else engine failure) with realistic plane component battle damage/destruction where you are not flying lazily and in a straight line at 5km and your combat is limited to just selecting and sending AMRAAMs at dots that show up on your radar... There's more maneuvering in one hour of MP play on the ATAG server in that game than a DCS server gets in a whole day. I'm not saying that this is the intention, far from it, but please consider just how far a desperate need to fit in with group/circle/gang/clique can push someone (young people and drugs/smoking/drinking, etc.). The pressure to spend an inordinate amount of money on what is a game (there IS a real life out there... ) that can sometimes be felt in this community can sometimes make people who are not as privileged to live in a rich country and have the opportunity to hit it big or be born to rich parents, feel less worthy. Ease off the pressure and your recommendations when they weren't requested. As they say, live and let live. In the end, I'd just like to put in a disclaimer that this post wasn't meant as inflammatory, nor am I pointing fingers at anyone, but am just asking for a little more relaxed atmosphere in what is, after all a small community for acomputer game. Thank you.

Jefe...would you say I had a...plethora...of pinatas?

The thing is, you need to look at what you need the thing to be able to do, or do realistically. I fly B738's for a living, and I don't stall them. So how realistic do I need it's 'edge of the envelope' flight model to really be? I have the PMDG model, it's very good too, and in 95% of situations it's close enough as to be bang on. If I want to start high G turns, riding the stick shaker kind of stuff, barrel rolls and trying to exceed Mach 1, it may be less realistic (not that I would know!) but it doesn't really need to do that stuff at all to provide a realistic experience, because the real aircraft never do that (sure, it would be nice, and it does do a good enough job there anyway). Combat aircraft sims on the other hand, have a MUCH higher bar to be met - aircraft must be able to be flown to the absolute bleeding edge of performance AND be simulated at that same edge with varying degrees of damage. I'd say the job of the combat sim dev is considerably harder, it's actually amazing what ED have achieved IMHO. The same with rotary winged flight, it's all about the FM details and how it translates into the actual sim. Even stuff like Dodosims B206 for FSX doesn't compare well to DCS. A2A warbirds for FSX/P3D are, IMHO, really well done, and frankly better than DCS when it comes to the 'feel' of sitting in an old cockpit, but don't compare all that well at the extreme outer 5% of the flight model on the other hand. The bottom line is that DCS is both required to, and DOES satisfy the far tougher demands placed on it. I'd be amazed if anybody who's put both FSX and DCS through their paces would think otherwise, or dismiss it outright.

i want to see a as350b1/b3 :P i know nemeth has that for fsx.. but after i mowed to DCS i am sold to the compexity of the aircraft, and lost interest in fsx :) and would love to see the a-star here. (it has som military versions too) :D