Leaderboard

Those look great Vitor. Here are a few of mine.

Т.е. если я создам миссию с таким раскладом: то летая за синих я всех победю одной левой, без устали и напряга? :lol::lol::lol: Вот тут есть еще одно чудо. Лично я покупал DCS: Горячие Скалы 3 И что-то я не вижу там пометки БЕТА. С какого перепугу у меня вдруг оказался су27 в стадии бета? :huh:

Напомнило анекдот про безопасный секс :)

Круто опустили сушку, крылья отваливаются, ракеты ващще летят кудато в пустоту, туда, где самолёт был некоторое время тому назад... SAB, щас Андрей Чиж и другие представители ЕД, будут тут писать, что твой трек (видос) вообще ни о чём не говорит, и ничего не доказывает, и сушка и ракеты, смоделированы исходя из имеющейся документации... т.е. как нада и так, как и должно быть..., а ты просто криворукий рукожоп и летать не умеешь правильно и ракеты запускаешь, не так как нада... ))))) :thumbup: ..Лично меня удивляет этот факт, как можно было так испоганить сушку, при этом говорить, что так и должно быть и приподнять Ф-15... если они по сути имеют схожие характеристики... P.S. Друзья, всех с прошедшим праздником, Великой победы!!

So, in an attempt to alieviate some of the stuttering I encounter during playing DCS I wrote a tool that extracts all the assets from the zip archives found in the DCS World game directories so that DCS did not have to access the zip file. For me, it has lessened the stuttering and if there is stuttering it's less likely to be more pronouced. The tool works for both Release, Alpha and Beta versions. It will extract any zip it finds and put the contents in a directory named the same as the zip file itself, it will then move the zip file to a backup directory in the same folder. The process can take quite some time and it will bloat your DCS installation directory substantially. To restore you'll have to move the zip files back to their original positions and remove any extracted files. To use: Run the tool Click Browse to find the root of your DCS World directory Click extract Source code also included if you want to mess about with it. Use at your own risk. I wrote this tool for myself but I'm sharing at the request of some others. Let me know if you see any improvements. Edit: This is also useful if you want to edit any texture or .dds files DCSAE.zip DCS Asset Extractor Source.zip

So I've always wanted to do this but the perfectionist in me never allowed me enough time to create something that looked as good as I wanted. With VR however, appearance of the physical hardware comes waaaaaaaay down the list of priorities because once you've got the headset on it makes little to no difference whatsoever. With that in mind my friend and I put together the "cockpit" below with the basic design requirements: 1) It holds my warthog and sidewinder with room to spare for a second keyboard/mouse for ease of use setting things up 2) It's no deeper than my current desk That was it. The second requirement that it's no deeper than my current desk was required so that when not in use it wouldn't infringe on the VR playspace for the HTC Vive headset that I also own. Complicated by the fact that the throttle unit really needs to sit beside you the unit itself actually the same depth as my desk and simply pulled in and out from against the wall when I need to use it. With no prior design we put it together in an hour and a half. I plan to tart it up a bit with a lick of paint and installing a hub on the desk itself so that there's only one cable from the unit to the computer. Considering it was made from leftover wood from my new bathroom installation the total price was effectively free to me - so double win. Hope this inspires some others to get to work on a really simple build of their own! :)

Ok, so I've been desperately wanting to give something back to the community. I'm a software developer by trade and would love to create a full featured lobby system for DCS. What I would require to do this is the release of the Server browser listing protocol specification and for ED to simply add the ability to join servers via the command line. ie, DCS.exe +connect <myserverip> +password <blah> I've been a software developer for 20 years and a gamer for more than that. It would be awesome to be able to developer a third party lobby system. I could create log book parsers, friends lists, favorites and region filters. I hope this could be possible.

Допустим, если в книге присутствует мат, и об этом не заявлено, то можно доказать, что книга принесла нравственные страдания, и взыскать компенсацию с издательства. Так что неисполненные обещания или введение в заблуждение тоже можно притянуть за уши. Доказать будет сложно, но это дело исца. Я желаю всем избежать такой ситуации. Люди покупают продукты не для того, чтобы потом судиться за качество. Так что траял-период поможет всем. Отправлено с моего Imperium8 через Tapatalk

Moin, nachdem ja jetzt auch ein Stammtisch Rhein/Ruhr seine "Arbeit" aufgenommen hat, wollte ich anregen hier im deutschen Forum einen Sticky Thread zu etablieren, von wo aus auf die entspr. Threads verlinkt wird. Wir hatten schon Leute dabei, die gesagt haben, dass sie diese Threads gar nicht wahrgenommen haben. Vielleicht motiviert das den einen oder anderen sich auch in seiner Region für einen Stammtisch zu interessieren. In diesem Zuge kann man ja dort auch auf die "Blue Flag", P-51 Races hinweisen.

Well, you're right in practice. The RCS does matter, but from the radar equation it follows that while received power is proportional to the RCS, it is inversely proportional to R⁴ (where R is the range). Meanwhile, energy received from a jammer is inversely proportional to R² (since it doesn't have to bounce and come back - it's traveling only one way), and that's why the burn-through distance is a thing: energy received from the jammer falls off slower over range than energy received from echoes does. Furthermore, range tends to be three orders of magnitude larger than RCS (from around 1 m² to around 100 m² for RCS and from about 1 to about 100 km for range). In other words, as far as jammer power output requirements go, if you want to hide yourself, range is vastly more important than RCS. edit: to review the maths: Ps * G² * σ * λ² Pe = ---------------- (4π)³ * R⁴Where: Pe is the received power (in Watts) Ps is the transmitted power (in Watts) G is the antenna gain σ is the RCS (in meters squared) λ is the wavelength (in meters) R is the range (in meters)

Is there any possibilities for Razbam devs to put more toggle options for the radar inputs like BALAYAGE, LIGNES and other inputs that requires 2 or more keys? I'm running out buttons on my Thrustmaster MDF's and HOTAS Warthog, even using the pinkie button as MODIFIER. I think not only me but a lot of other guys would apreciate more toggle options for the next patches. It doesn't kill the simulation like some guys said (and gave me some bad rep) on another topic when I just simply asked about the possibility for some toggles for DCS Mig-21. I just think that makes the sim even more enjoyable since we can make options for the people who have money and knowledge to build home cockpits and for the guys (the great majority) that just have a monitor and a joystick.

Dear fellow simmers, We are making good progress on the addons of the Gazelle. Here're are some shots of the peacemakers which you'll get soon :)

перефразирую разработчика WOT, там когда орали что СССР не нОгибает, он отвечал просто: "не играйте на советах", так и тут не летайте на 27ом.

1) Pinky switch назад включает режим БАНО в соответствии с панелью, вперед- стандартный режим, по центру (дефолт) - выключено. 2) Boat switch

So how's testing going so far, will we (Red?) have a few 1st person drivable Tunguska, Tor, Osa? :)

Почему же, сейчас если зеркала убраны в настройках, то в игре при нажатии М они "возвращаются", при повторном нажатии застывают, конкретно на Ми-8 и Ф-15. Да и для Ми-8 добавили ведь ещё полное убирание зеркал на М, только в 2.0.2 пока что реализовано

Легкий троллинг: Тут такие страсти кипят. И вот эти люди говорят что тундра менее симулятор чем fc3 :))))) у самих сушка не летает, мираж умирает от 5 ракет, миг-21 будет перекручивать f-5... А потом - тундра, не не симулятор, а вот dcs это да..

New skin I made: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/1901566/

"Иван Васильевич,когда ВЫ говорите,мне кажется,что Вы бредите"-х/ф "Иван Васильевич меняет профессию.":doh::D

В наших руках далеко не все;) А вот в руках уважаемых разработчиков действительно многое, в частности настроить СДУ, чтобы не допускала выхода на разрушающую и сделать для F-15 аналогичную модель повреждений от перегрузок.

Понятно, придётся изучать техники тарана в воздухе..

Да, мне кажется пробный период был бы полезен. Будем это обсуждать.

Ответ выше. Понимаете, у нас не большая команда, со своими планами и задачами. У нас нет выделенных специалистов для контроля внешников, которых становится все больше и больше. Мы им помогаем по мере сил, отрываясь от основой работы, но контролировать все не можем. И чем больше внешних проектов, тем меньше мы можем уделять им внимания.

А как нам узнать об особенностях модуля заранее? Везде ведь пишут "наиподробнейший аналог, да свет таких ещё не видывал и т.д.", про своё вооружение вообще ни слова, покупаешь модуль, остаешься им недоволен, и как его тогда вернуть обратно? Может реализуете тогда тестовый период?

и не поспоришь

If we talking only about 3D goggles based VR (oculus and so on) - it can't change cockpit building in any way - it's something suitable for Wii, playstation or xbox (if you have no friends and family) - you put it on and you are looking through a hole at 3D graphics and can't really interact with anything or anybody around. Projector based Mixed VR is a different mater - that could potentially have massive impact on cockpit building as you can be physically inside the VR, take controls with you as well as retain the ability to interact with everything and everybody in normal manner. I've got it working now with the SimPit Black Pearl and Icarus (some photos have 3D vision off) Video of hybrid (mixed VR) cockpit in action https://www.facebook.com/simpittech/videos/1005647266187302/ https://www.facebook.com/simpittech/videos/1005433672875328/

"Shack!"

Whoa whoa whoa friend. Improve? Improve a lot? Listen buddy, the F-15 is perfectly manuverable. No need to improve, or improve a lot on perfection guy.

Запилил тут небольшое видео по созданию плана полёта на Ка-50, оставлю его и тут, если кому интересно будет.

Reading these responses, I perceive excitement and hope, but I also perceive doubt about eventual success. I also neglected to mention some important details in the initial announcement (updated). I'd like to explain my battle-plan for the programming effort, in the hope that the whole effort will be believable. First off, I picked the Tu-22M3 because it's largely an analog airplane. Most systems or cockpit indicators just do a few simple things, and they don't talk as much with each other. The code for them will have low complexity. One measure of this is cyclomatic complexity. Contrast this with the F/A-18 ED is working on, or any modern real world aircraft for that matter. Their cockpit displays and aircraft systems are extremely integrated, and as the degree of integration or complexity increases, the development effort increases exponentially. That's just my experience. The Tu-22M3 has redundant systems, but they are a 'simple' redundancy: they are in parallel, like power buses, or there are two or more physical units like airspeed indicators. If something breaks, you don't have to program a reaction to it. On modern systems, if something fails, all the computers have a stupid confab about it, and often decide to DO something, like swap channels, or vote on the best source of data, or average the remaining sources of data. The options are endless, and the powers that be dictate that all options must be implemented. Tons of code results. Ask the ED guys about it on the F/A-18. The Tu-160, B-52, B-1B, etc all have at multiple integrated digital systems that would have ground things to a halt. With the Tu-22M3, I don't have to deal with that. If the BN's airspeed indicator dies, he asks the pilot to read him airspeeds. If the autopilot goes out, he starts giving course corrections to the pilot. This isn't ideal in the real world, and that's why we have progress, but for our simulation purposes, it makes my life much, much easier. An Su-24 is similar to to the Tu-22M3 in this respect, but it requires a single player to be in two places at once during the final critical phases of a bombing run or weapons launch, as the pilot is truly directing the airplane, but he doesn't have the attack radar in front of him, and in the final moments, you need EVERYTHING for cross-checking. The Tu-22M3 is a bit old fashioned, in that the pilot hands off the plane to the BN entirely, and you only need to be in that position during the bombing run. You've got the optical bombsight, autopilot control, attack radar, nav radar, and standard six pack instruments all at that single station. Some weapons controls are at EW but you can preset all that, and pickle from the BN seat. A single player doesn't have to go mad. There will be optional AI for the RWR for single player mode. For these reasons of complexity, and a reasonable single player experience, there is only one option in a modern bomber: Tu-22M3. Now, before I produce a single line of code, I create a monstrous Design Document (DD). That's where you spell out in plain English or with engineering diagrams what every cockpit indication does, how every single system works in detail. It keeps the software project organized. It highlights work scope creep. It gives you a metric to measure progress. It also, most importantly, allows you to split up work, and I will be delegating like gangbusters. I am in a position due to experience and training, to go through tons of Russian documentation, translate it, and then incorporate the stuff that's relevent to simulation into the design document. In just that respect, I am doing something by myself. But A design document is sufficiently detailed for a programmer with no knowledge of the system to go and implement it in code. My wife is a programmer. Tons of my friends are programmers; they are engineers too, so they have tools like Simulink, detailed below. DD. Delegation. Those are what will make this project awesome and on time. Engineers like me who have to incorporate electronics on our aircraft or engines are programmers by circumstance, and even then, under duress. We think and communicate in diagrams, equations, concepts. A fuel system isn't a bunch of ones and zeros, it's twelve damned fuel tanks with various pumps, vents, fire suppression systems and cockpit indications. Engineers have long switched to graphical programming environments like Simulink, and to a lesser extent NPSS (Numerical Propulsion Simulation something-or-other) to program simulations of physical systems faster and more accurately than with hand code. It looks like this: Simulink takes those diagrams and converts them to C-code, and can them compile them into the dll(s) that DCS will use. I can test my logic at a very high level, within simulink, I will do a validation check of the added system in DCS, and it gets checked again when alpha and beta (since there are four positions, maybe we have alpha, beta, gamma and delta testers?) testers get their hands on it. I can even program HUDS (there isn't one in this case) and displays within Simulink/Matlab, and trade args with the airframe and cockpit in this environment. It's far faster and easier in this way. Eventually, there is C++ and lua programming required to tie everything together, but high level stuff is done in Simulink. I'm not sure I can give a quick explanation here of how I am going to do the flight and engine models. Maybe later. I will be using some modern tools for both that should let me create accurate models quickly, that can then be validated by open source information I have on both. The Tu-22M3 has one or two aerodynamic bugaboos, a nasty stall with the wings swept, plus the wings flex as much as eight degrees at high sweep, high load factor and high angle of attack. That cannot be ignored aerodynamically, but all of these issues have been faced and solved by others before me. To summarize the things that make this simulation tractable: - I chose an aircraft with significantly less complexity than it's brethren. - Design Document - Delegation - Graphical programming environment (Simulink/Matlab) - Modern software tools for speedy flight and engine modeling In the midst of all this, I personally have two unknowns. At present I'm not sure how to impliment multi-crewing. I know it's been done for two; I assume there is some way to do four. If any of you have solid thoughts on solving that particular item, I'm all ears. I'm also not going to take the time to model the radar reflectivity of the terrain for the radars, so I hope to lean on ED's experience for that, but we'll see what happens. I hope this was informative, and not preachy. Brian

A short film of a dogfight between a MiG-21bis and a F4 Phantom, and the consequences. Full screen viewing suggested. Labels on given they were the default in the mission and I've been practising up some gun fighting. Still familiarizing with the MiG-21 all in all. However I found when trying a recording without labels that the film probably works better this way for people not yet familiar with DCS. Better visibility makes for a better understanding on what's going on. Who know's, perhaps it might inspire someone.

:megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol: :doh:

Spying on Area 51 from Tikaboo Peak :music_whistling:

Fun with Bridges. Some Precision Training. :)

Yup, still really enjoying this bird!!! Can still use a lot of practice landing... but the rest of it is coming along nicely!

Training in Nevada:

The Gazelle is an enrichment for DCS.

True Very sad , but true.