Leaderboard

Commands and animation will be synchronized, the only thing not synchronized at day 1 will be local variables like fuel level (e.g. if you join the flight after a certain time than your friend and your friend had consumed 500 kg, your fuel will be full), hydraulic pressures, oxy level, etc. If you join the mission at the same time you won't have these problems Inviato dal mio ASUS_I005D utilizzando Tapatalk

Greetings everyone, today we want to present to you some screenshots of our new cockpit in-game. It looks amazing and really feels like the real thing. Also, work has started on our own exterior model that will address all the shortcomings of the current one. We are in the early stages of the process so this is a feature that we will have for you down the road. Finally, are still at work on the EFM, the FCS and many other systems; when they will be ready we will make a video to present them to you. That's all for now, stay safe and check six!

J10-A Community Mod v.1.0.0 Download : https://github.com/whisky-actual/Community-J-10-A Discord link : https://discord.gg/WhnCeenaPe Download Paint kit : J-10A_Paintkit_v1.0.zip (you will need the Microsoft YaHei Font) With the permission of original author, @happy cavin, we took his FC3 J-10 mod and adapted it for wonderful JF-17 made by Deka Ironwork Simulations using it's cockpit and avionics. We also added several custom weapons from the PLAA, custom cockpit textures and other interesting features.. We are taking the "early access" route with this mod and sharing it as-is. Work will continue and your help will be appreciated if you have any modding experience. Contributing Developers Cactus, Snowy Wolf, Yatsie, Whisky Actual Special Thanks Currenthill, Cdp Kobra, Freebird and the SU30 Team, Fatpsacepanda and JacobBadshot Features New exterior textures Updated animations Canards (in-flight) Leading edges Flaps New cockpit textures to match the J10A New Hud graphics to match what is seen in public videos New night lights mode for NVG based public pictures WIP mandarin cockpit (see options menu) FM modification using a special pod to have a different feel from the base JF-17 AAR refueling Authentic weapons loadouts with past, current and future weapons of the People's Liberation Army Air Force PL-8A PL-8B PL-10 PL-11 PL-12 PL-15 YJ-83K 250-3 YJ-91 JG500 JG500B Known Bugs Find the full list of bugs and enhancements at https://github.com/whisky-actual/Community-J-10-A/issues Installation The preferred method will be to use OVGME or any other mod management software. 1) Download the mod and extract it to your desktop. 2) Make backups of your CoreMods AND Mods folders in your main DCS install. 3) Drop the content of the CoreMods AND Mods in your main DCS install; override the files. 4) To remove the mod you will need to delete the CoreMods and Mods folders and replace them with your backups. Frequently Asked Questions Q: Do you need JF-17 to use the module? Yes. Q: Do we plan to make it a standalone? No. Q: Do we plan to have a B model or C models? Yes, possibly in the future. Q: Will the J10A mod pass IC? No.

Kola needs submarine warfare improvements. Sonobuys, new torpedoes and missiles, naval bases.

We all are allowed to have our own interpretation/opinion of what is considered broken or not, to me it's very broken (I never said "completely broken" by the way) and to you it's mostly accurate, but what I said though is not a "false statement" that you have proof is incorrect, the proof of my claims is in the module, the many sources, the SMEs, the bug reports, the provided evidence, etc. There is a long list of bugs or incorrect implementations in the forum, many of which are supported with evidence and many are considered accepted/reported by ED, whether it's specifically F-18 radar, general radar, or otherwise, and the Google Doc you've seen that lists a lot of missing (and very important) features that are needed for proper F18 radar operation that all have sources. Making claims that it is "mostly accurate" is hurtful to the community because any informed members (and there are many, they are often just quiet observers in these public spaces) start to lose hope that the module will be fully (as far as usable evidence can support of course) completed one day. I've seen many diamonds of the community start to fade away because they've lost hope. My words are probably too harsh, but your words are too "fantastic". ED has created something absolutely wonderful in this sim and everyone in the community I'm sure are extremely happy that DCS exists and they (I assume, can't speak for everyone of course) just want to see it come full circle. The DCS: F-18 is so close, but needs that extra love to finish it off, but pushing it under the rug saying it's basically done isn't the right move, but I also shouldn't be so harsh, maybe I am just jaded for waiting so long and seeing so many steps forward combined with many steps backwards.

Hi ED, are there still scheduled performance improvements coming for the marianas map? Compared to the other maps, it still runs very badly in regards to FPS ,even when lowering shadows or switching them off. However it seems, there havent been a lot of significant updates to the map after release and it has been been quiet about this map for quite a while now. The scenery is very beautiful, but the performance really reduces the immersion, unless you have an extremely powerful machine, but even high end users seem to report significantly less frames. Do you still have any performance improvement updates planned for this map? Anyway, thanks a lot for making the map available for free. Regards, Snappy

Any chance the manual can be made available before release, like for the F1? Cheers!

I recently bought the Mirage F1 because AvioDev worked so hard on the very "lively" C-101. Happy to support AvioDev and now AERGES Engineering. If the MB-339 had come out sooner I probably would not have got the F1. I will be buying the MB-339 on Day One! Can't wait to compare it to the other DCS Trainers! Good luck with the launch @6S.Duke !

Those are the preprogrammed frequencies for airfields. You use them to talk to ATC. On the kneeboard there is a page of airfield codes and radio frequencies. The Base selector dial (the right of the two radio dials on the left panel) should be set to the same number as the last two digits of the airfield; e.g. Kobuleti is 9013, so set Base to 13. The frequencies for ATC at Kobuleti are also listed, and you can select them using the A, B, C1, C2, D preset buttons. If you want to set mission-specific radio channels you should use the Special 1,2,3 and the Group channels (the left selector dial) with the 0 through 9 preset buttons.

Any news on the potential FM rework?

Can this thing get removed?

I am of course talking about the Lun class Ekranoplan as seen in the video game World in Conflict! It'd be really cool to see this in DCS, skimming the ocean at almost 300 knots!

a While ago the Aim-9B was fixed because the activation time was wrong. it seems the RB-24 (which is a licensed copy of the AIM-9B) from HB Viggen module still behave like the old AIM-9B here the old AIM-9B thread here is the RB-24 track rb24.trk

Debates over the Polychop SA342's flight model have been done to death at this point. You cannot get past the fundamental inaccuracy of the FM. Full stop. It doesn't hit known data points and only sorta resembles a helicopter feeling. Axis tuning no doubt helps (even I use Casmo's settings to good effect), but at the end of the day you are in essence going a vague likeness of a helicopter. That doesn't make it bad, it only makes it inaccurate. The SA342 can be a lot of fun to play around with and now that there have been inroads on items such as multicrew it has greatly expanded the fun factor. Having said that, I have to vehemently disagree with the idea that civilian derivatives of military helicopters are somehow using a completely different SAS or SCAS setup. This is totally incorrect and reeks of misunderstanding basic helicopter flight systems. The comparison made is toward uniquely different aircraft: a UH-1H with a stabilizer bar versus a AH-64 is apples and oranges. The main reason you see aircraft like the Bell 204 in widespread civilian usage is simply that such aircraft are far cheaper to buy and more economical to operate than a modern EC145. You'll find that a lot of the more big, expensive civilian helis like the Bell 214 will use a SCAS out of necessity, due to the use cases of the helicopter. The 214's SCAS is fundamentally identical to the SCAS on the AH-1 series of helicopters, up to the Z model.

What about a P-3 Orion as a BLUFOR counterpart to the Tu-142 that we have? P-3s used to be based out of Andøya Air Station, so we'll have a base for it on the map (same goes for the -142 on Severomorsk-1). My personal preference would be a mid 80s, USN, P-3C Update II. It's almost entirely dedicated to ASW (the Tu-142 is entirely dedicated to ASW IRL AFAIK), but it does at least carry a surface-search radar and the AGM-84 Harpoon. If you wanted to be accurate to Norway and the aircraft actually based at Andøya is the P-3B, though I'm less certain that it carries the Harpoon (Norway did use the P-3C, but that's more at the very end of the Cold War).

I was making sure that the issue was reproducible and what you suggest would have been my next move. Then, I saw your post on running the repair in "Slow" method. I have only done in the "fast" method before. After I did run the repair with the slow method, the problem disappeared. I have been trying to recreate it but, and thankfully, I cannot For now, I will have to assume that it got fixed by running the repair like that, although there was no mention in the buffer that any corrupt files were spotted. Thank you for your help! PS: I might be wrong on the spotting of corrupt files. There was one file in a FW190A folder (id_6_N.dds) that was replaced. Anyway, Everything is still properly functioning.

These words were mine, not ED's, and I regret the phrasing. What I should have said is this: The Tall King unit has not made it to the game yet. In the meantime, the Tin Shield unit works as a palliative alternative for SA-5 launchers. Hence the "SA-5" prefix was added to this unit, in order to avoid multiple forum threads like "I cannot find the radar unit associated with SA-5 launchers", "SA-5 missiles are never launched", "SA-5 broken"... I'm pretty sure ED will remove the "SA-5" prefix from the Tin Shield once the Tall King is added. Now, I'm sure the next question will be: "when?". Well, I don't know.

That cockpit looks awesome guys. Great work.

Good call, but no success. Switching off HAGS did it for me. Thanks everyone for your help. Have a great weekend!

For a flight sim with an "ancient" game engine, looking good!

Excellent. Thank for that explanation.

Here you go EDIT ⁠— I made a mistake in the video by accident. I was using HEAT rockets in the video by mistake. Correct ranges for HE rockets are ~9.0-9.5km at 30 degrees and ~10.5-11km at 45 degrees. lol

Wags mentioned they talked to them at an expo 3 years ago. That does not mean their Development Path started 3 years ago, And it's not like they shared a Dr. Pepper and said we'll get on it tomorrow, there's legal items and contracts that have to be drafted and signed. DCS Uses a completely different engine, it's not copy/paste, adjust a few LUA's and compile a bin and it's done. the only stuff they'd be able to move is the Assets in their base form, 3D models would need to be re-animated, and materials adjusted, they'd be able to take terrain elevation data to the new SDK to generate terrain mesh and maybe textures but they'd need reworked as DCS uses a different lighting engine as well.

Kfir C1 was pretty bad. It had a stronger engine than the Mirage III but also higher weight. Kfir C2 introduced the canards, small winglets on the nose, and saw-tooth wing leading edges. These were a significant improvement over the C1 in air combat maneuvering. Kfir C7 was similar to C2 with further improved of avionics. The Kfirs were used mainly as fast attack aircraft using non guided munitions but with excellent computer assisted aiming via the HUD. It was supposed to be able to conduct strikes without the need for escorts and disengage at high speed. With GP bombs it achieved higher accuracy than the F-4E Phantoms of its era. GBUs were still not a big thing in the late 70s, especially not in strategic strikes or attacks on enemy airfields. I expect it to be performance wise somewhat similar to the Mirage F1, without radar, but with a range finder for a HUD cannon sight, and good CCIP/CCRP capabilities.

While I wouldn't say that it is "completely broken", there are a lot of areas where it is not accurate. Unfortunately, the available documentation is often refused by ED. I can understand that if you have "insider knowledge" of ED's simulation of the APG-73 radar, you might have a good idea of if it is accurate or not according to the developpers, but we don't have access to that information and unfortunately we never got (so far) the radar whitepaper that was discussed some months ago. As such, we have to assume from what we have as users: the available real documentation and the end product we currently use in DCS. Comparing one with the other highlights some significant discrepancies. Some examples: - Jammer/Radar Priority - Waveform selection (should be able to make an STT track appear as if it is guiding an AIM-7 even if it is not) - PVU - Velocity Search - Terrain Avoidance - RWS horizontal slewing - Integration of sources with MSI and the radar, including having a L&S track without radar, getting range source from MSI on an AOT radar track, etc. - Proper trackfile death model that does not rely on the display-only brick age-out setting. Again, I do not condone hyperbolas such as "completely broken", but I personally believe that more than "a few areas to tune" is left to be done on the APG-73 to be "mostly accurate". Hopefully these will be covered and implemented at some point.

First of all apologies, I dont know if its ED or you guys that handle weapon so im gonna post it here so you guys are aware. Currently the RB-24 still behave like the old AIM-9B where the missile start tracking way to late Here is the original threa explaining the bug and also includes the documentation And here is the track file rb24.trk

One pro tip is to try to get co-alt with targets, change the azimuth to 30 degrees, range to 35 or less. To lock you need to keep pressing the lock button until it locks. Also the elevation controls are messed up, in delta D mode instead of 1 being 1000 ft, its 10,000. Its a known bug.

And Norwegian army units, M-24, M-48, Leo-1...

Thanks, @BuzzU. I have heard that as well. The good news is that I have no recent joystick muscle memory to overwrite. For my first 100hrs, I want to work exclusively on F-16 proprioception. Afterwards I'll add a separate middle stick for rotary/other fixed-wing to build on top of that finer-tuned foundation.

Unless you're on Steam. Why don't you try it for free for two weeks? Cheers!

You create custom snap views with a few key combos. This made a huge difference for me in the Blackshark. With VR now, I just lean forward a little. You could also try ALT+F1. It brings the MPDs in like on the vid, but the rest of the cockpit disappears, so it can destroy immersion. Here's a vid on how to do the snapview and how it looks:

Plus the Type VIIC and ARA Santa Fe - torpedoes are in DCS (though the only guidance systems implemented are WWI style, straight-running torpedoes) and there are several torpedo schemes in Scripts\Database\Weapons\schemes\torpedoes. But yes the Type 093 proves we can have submarines launch anti-ship cruise missiles (all they're missing is the fact they should be encapsulated, but this is more of a trvivial detail, easily solved with an animation argument). The 2 anti-ship cruise missiles for the B-871 Alrosa and the Pr. 636 Improved Kilo are the 3M-54E and 3M-54E1, the former is missing its terminal stage and both don't have their launch capsules. However, the 3M-54E and E1 are specifically submarine launched variants. The Improved Kilo is also fully animated (and I mean fully - even the torpedo tube reloading adapter cover is animated, as are the outer doors for its tubes, all masts and antennas, you name it). As for the targeting logic and mission tasking - it's no different to what we have for surface ships right now ((i.e the attack unit/group tasks, which AFAIK grant the AI omniscience about their target. Last I checked ships and submarines don't get the search then engage tasks which requires they find the target themselves), just submarines in DCS are limited to generic optical sensors only (at least, that's all that's defined in their .luas). With all that said I'd still really like to stress that I'd almost infinitely prefer to have more surface ships (particularly Cold War BLUFOR ships like the Knox, Spruance and Belknap), than more submarines (for which there is little-to-no groundwork for player interaction).

Currently the sun cover of the radar screen blocks the mouse movements. The mouse latches onto the surface of the cover instead of the knobs behind it. Since you dont need to touch the cover it would be cool to just touch the knobs as a pilot would by putting their fingers into the small gap. In VR I have to move very close to the radar screen to fully uncover the knobs in order to make the mouse jump from the sun cover to the knobs.

As I wrote it above : do what ever you want! It's free. Only forbidden : make money with it You have to find a way for the frequency change. Would be a pity to let it drop, my opinion. And I see 2 problems to solve : Cheers

I just thought it would be a cool little touch since we just got the 18s gun sparks and yanno it wouldn't be to hard to implement. And I know there wasn't one in the second detachment coz it doesn't always happen that's why I used that video Exactly and it would just add that little bit more of realism coz its always the small things that add up to make the game better.

Regardless of what influenced it, I for one very much appreciate the WWII Assets pack, and get a lot of use out of the Assets Pack/Combined Arms tech packs. I also very much look forward to any improvements in Ai/infantry, as well as any additional assets we get. But to break out of the June 44 mold, it would be nice to not only see more planes, but armored vehicles that were pre-Tiger tank. We don't have a single PzIII variant including the Ausf. N which was widely fielded by D-Day. And there are no light German tanks which formed a large part of the tank forces fielded at least up to 1942. The PzII Ausf. L was one of the most interesting armored recon units of WWII, but not present in DCS WWII. I look forward to building out my library of modules in DCS including the jet age stuff, but I really hope we also see improvements in ground units/infantry.

The infantry animation made me think of Boston Dynamics. Not sure if that is good or scary.

You have to hold the left mouse while you scroll down. In real life you have to pull those knobs out above the little gate and turn them to uncage. I think it's meant to simulate that. Would be nice if you could just hold left click and then drag mouse down.

The OP is right, the radar, in A/A mode, should be able to process incoming signals passively in SIL. SIL does not inhibit processing, only transmission. A jamming signal is an incoming signal and thus should be able to be processed with the A/A radar in SIL. AOTs should continue to be received and processed in SIL, as long as they still transmit a jamming signal. @BIGNEWYPM sent.

Let's not confuse complexity with sophistication. Just because something is complex does not mean that it must have a complex interface. Good apps make complex tasks more accessible. The task itself still remains complex. The HOTAS as a design idea is a good example. It reduces the effort required of the human in a complex task. That task has not become easier (no-one would ever tell a Hog driver that their last deployment was just an arcade game because of their HOTAS), the interface merely became better, relieving the human. Same with other UX. Just because it's a complex task for a developer to manage a multitude of devices it does not mean that the user has to suffer similarly. We can and do expect to be shielded from unnecessary complexity. That is the hallmark of good design. I have seen much better UX than what we have, and suffered through hours of brutal UX feedback/refinement sessions for products I was involved with myself to know the difference. Good design is hard. Look at ME's left-side Icon bar and tell me that you, in all honesty, think that we are looking at good design <snicker>. Very little thought has gone into that (for me essential) interface, and it shows. A good mission editor does not have to be that difficult to use, and neither does a good device config manager.

Could one of the devs give us a little further detail on what 'standard basic synchronisation' means vs 'full state synchronisation' in that latest update? At initial launch, would it be an aircraft I could teach in from the back seat? I.e, engine state, fuel state, aircraft services state (gear/flaps/brakes. etc) all synchronised? Looking forward very much to the module's release.

At the end though, it is still souped up compared to more vanilla Mirage III family even if not quite up to the level hoped for. Cheetah though, it definitely looks better than Kfir too... I'd love it too but I'm happy enough to see the Kfir added to the stable

Yes

I had a talk with Razbam's and their radar SME (which I assume is Galinette) told me through their CM that while the Doppler shift is great, the return in itself is pretty small. The radar does not only need a proper Doppler shift, but also a proper signal-to-noise ratio, which the very small heli blades do not provide according to the SME. So even though the signature is recognizable, the range at which it has a signal significant enough to be detected is quite low. I myself don't have any experience in that regard, but I was curious and asked around. Just a thing to consider.

Razbam MiG-23MLA R-23R and R-23T R-13M

That's not the issue discussed here, no one is asking for a full simulation. All we care about is that it looks and feels correct according to available information. In the list of examples that @toilet2000mentioned, all of them have nothing to do with actual radar wave and E/M interaction simulation. They merely require the correct logic to be implemented, and with the exception of MSI, all others exist in some form in other modules, which proves they can be done within the context of DCS (I'll also add a correct TWS AUTO myself). None of this is about the simulation of a real, physics-based radar (although I'd personally love it if some aspects were actually simulated). The combination of the Hornet's radar and MSI (both indispensable to A/A and extremely integrated into each other, alongside other MSI sources), is something that would be a first in DCS - true sensor fusion. It is an amazing capability and the Hornet is tailored to fight using it (a lot of the HOTAS logic and various options in different pages only make sense with MSI correctly implemented - notice the lack of Radar Slave on the ATFLIR, it's because the ATFLIR generates its own trackfiles, you don't need to slave the radar, you can just designate them). We just want to see this already nice module reach its full potential - or come close to it.

See my statement, just because you don't know about the document doesn't mean the person posting and ED don't

First person control for infantry would be AWESOME. Digital Combat Simulator

Generally I try to be as realistic as possible but if it is a switch that is necessary I will map it on the controls. Great example being trim on WWII aircraft. There is no way I am trimming with the mouse and I don't really have the option to create realistic controls for it so I will just put it on the train hat. Another example is the ACM radar modes on the F-14. The switch is in the wall in front of the throttle. That was already mapped for me on the stick by Heatblur. I think it's more realistic that way than getting your eyes off the target to search for the switch so you can click it with your mouse since the real pilot would have memorized it's location and won't have to search for it. In regards to the F1 I still haven't figured out what I am going to map on it since I didn't have much time to fly it yet.