Leaderboard

Harbor Boats, Off Shore Vessels, and Tankers These mods have been sitting collecting dust on my HD for way too long. I keep meaning to check and fix/release them for ages. The time has come! Please note, The above mentioned fixes have NOT been done. I have taken a quick look in sim to check if most show. Some have collision shells, some do not. Some have landing pads! These I usually add a good collision for helo ops. Sorry, No pics yet. Try them out! Post screens in this thread! I will get to it eventually. lol Saved games install location. OvGME ready. Enjoy! https://www.dropbox.com/s/mq0c1xqd9d2i4i6/Tankers V2.7.8.7z?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/83dbypbz8bt8a3c/Off Shore Ships V2.7.8.7z?dl=0 Just for fun! https://www.dropbox.com/s/3ua4ibp8rwbk02y/Shark Cage Diving.rar?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/rr59qrhlq6srwl6/Harbor Boats V2.7.8.7z?dl=0

In accordance with the flight manual, there were no restriction for throttle usage in all flight envelope. If I remember well, a compressor stall could be recognized by the followings: Max EGT 600, RPM max ~70% (maybe some flactuation as well), loss off thrust and a special noise like BRRRRRR. But it was almost impossible to happen, what ever you do. It happend to me to recover one of the two compressor stalls incidences of HAF F-1s that occoured in a Total of more than 90.000 hours in around 27 years. In my case the compressor stalled didn't cleared by setting idle throttle and dive to get 300knots. It cleared after applying relight procedure (under 10000 feet). They technicians haven't found any problem but If I am sure that it was most probably due to malfunction of SRL, cause it happened when I set MAX AB in at very low speed, nose high attitude with high AoA at 15000ft. If I am not mistaken the other compressor stall incidence happened during a very violent high speed adverse yaw and cleared by setting idle and dive up to 300knots. I don't remember if the found the cause for it.

Hey guys! I got a little tired of fixing stuff and making the 3d models lighter so I put together a little easter egg yesterday. It's the Swedish prototype MBT Strv 2000 T140/40 with a massive 140 mm main cannon and a side mounted 40 mm autocannon. The project was eventually shut down and Sweden chose the Leopard MBT. Consider this a what-if scenario, just for the fun of it. Well, it gave me new energy to continue the work... I also updated the one-pagers on the initial post with the updated and new assets.

It's not true that no one asks about it. It just isn't as popular as the Phantom, Intruder and the Tornado. The issue is that Heatblur has taken quite a few projects already so any talk for further modules is for far into the future. I for one would absolutely love to have it and it would make a logical progression after the F-14, F-4, A-6, Viggen and Eurofighter. The problem is that those modules all take priority over it so I don't really see any reason to start speculating about next modules.

I get why the Comanche seems interesting and cool. Unfortunately the reality of it ever becoming a full fidelity module is unfeasible because it was never a fully operational model. However it is very possible to make mod of it with the limited information know about it like the version that already exist for Arma 3. That is the best you can hope for.

Let's use some Beta Tester logic. We are in a thread about alternate cockpits motivated by the state of the current cockpit, specifically around legability of instruments and labels. I've specified exactly what's hard to read in the front cockpit. You've asked me three times if I can't see what you claim is _clearly readable_. What do you think my answer is? We know *you* don't have this problem (as you've mentioned three times), but what do you think my answer is based on this topic, this thread, these comments and my comments to you? Thank you for contributing (three times!) that *you* don't have this problem, but I'll clue you in to something outside of your sim pit: some of us do. Actually a lot of us do. It's also worth mentioning, that yes, I *can* see the switches you mention, but that was never my complaint. I understand in the fleet Tomcat cockpits were dirty. I couldn't care less if the scanned cockpit is too pretty based on real life (but I dont buy that, at all) - this is a game and I dont derive my self worth from torturing myself, because reality. I would like a more romantic cockpit with easily legible markings, labeling, etc. You repetitivly asserting you don't have an issue is just peachy, but doesn't move the ball forward and doesn't erase the shared reality of many Tomcat enjoyers that much of the cockpit labeling is worn beyond servicability.

I really just want an early light weight F-16A Blk15, or F-16A ADF. The future of DCS is 1970s-1980s, with the planes we have and the plane we have coming, thats going to be the most interest era to play. Please just give me an F-16 that fits that era. Just rip out the screens and throw in a few more steam gauges and lighten it up.

Where did you gte that information? My guess is that MB 339 is next in line for release...

In case its not clear already... D4n is a known troll that has been kicked off servers for alt account abuse, and makes bug reports every time hes shot down, blaming it on broken IRCM, OP missiles, w/e. Hes just interested in finding an excuse for why he got shot down, and blame it on TIR. You will not reason with him.

Updated the OP with a version that passes the IC. This new version is installed into the Saved games folder instead of the main dir. No changes made to the textures, only the file structure to get it past IC.

We appreciate the wish for a cleaner cockpit very much, unfortunately it is not within the realm of feasible currently though, as a complete rework of the cockpit would simply take far too long. And while we do believe the cockpit is a faithful representation of its in service character, and it was a deliberate decision to tell many small stories through its wear and tear. It is also an artistic decision we very much stand by. That however does not mean that we would not want to give you more options, if we could. But this is precisely what forge is for. And I should probably clarify a bit on that: weathering details does not mean the entire cockpit. More like panels, places, spots. But this is where we can make certain things more legible, a bit different, etc. to diversify the experience. It likely will not constitute in the end what most of you would regard as a "clean cockpit", and in the end is also not meant to deliver that, but meant to deliver the experience of not flying always the same aircraft. But we do hear your wishes, and I would be surprised if not some of them at least will be considered when time comes. It will, of course, have to fit within the current representation. Thank you for your kind understanding.

XRNeckSafer Beta3 is out. : XRNeckSafer Changelog for beta3: pitch axis added translation when rotated fixed GUI optimization options to disable GUI output and joystick auto reconnect to eliminate possible causes of stutter list of OpenXR API layers reenabled Cheers, NobiWan

Since I have no data it's only some guess, but I think the Magic "One" already had SEAM-like capabilities with Radar-Seeker slavery mechanisms. In favor of this hypothesis it is never claimed that Magic II introduced this capability, which it obviously has. Edit: Found some quote (translated from: https://www.caea.info/fr/l-association/50-collection/armement/574-magic ) Since I doupt the seeker's sensor itself had 140° focal cone, this imply that this 140° cone is provided by seeker mobility around gimbals guided by aircraft telemetry. In two words, the Magic "One" had SEAM-like and radar slave capability.

Рано хороните Вы нас.. я так и на Ми4 "покататься" успел чутка.. и в ТЭЧ заруливал, так как раз базу хранения перед "потрошением" организовавали, когда на Ми2 перевооружали )) !) . Вообще то чисто боевые вертолёты по жизни не мой профиль, но на "веранде" посидел. Для своего времени, приличная техника. Но навести УР оператору, практически невозможно было, основное у него были НАР. Насчет фоток, сразу скажу, в те времена летные, далекие-былинные даже мыслей не было фотки делать для Инстаграм и лайки собирать ))!. Курсантские в основном.. Приятно вспомнить лейтенантские годы...

According to one member of F-35 mod team, the mod is still developing but their Discord has to be closed due to negative pressure from community

Do the conversation a favor and stop with the actual passive-aggressive act regarding the testers identifier. We don't add our titles; they're afforded based on the substantial amount of our time and energy we put in to make the sim better, whether or not you agree with the outcome, or our personal opinions on a subjective topic (of which this is). Pull up a copy of Danny Coram's "Uncovering the F-14" if you have it, or search for it online. Or get your hands on one of the multitude of Tomcat fan magazines the Japanese put out in the mid to late 90s and forward ten years into the end of service period- you'll find line jets at Oceana, Fallon, and elsewhere with clearly worse condition cockpits based on the scratches and wear to the surfaces enclosed in those pages. Unfortunately, your experience isn't comparable, and the evidence is there to disprove it. You don't have to like that, it simply is what it is. Doesn't mean it isn't valid on the types you were around, and if and when those come into DCS- I'd hope they're presented in the condition you recall. As for the Tomcat, I expect it to be in the condition the SMEs HB worked with recall- and that's exactly where it is. The bottom line is that the jet as exampled isn't beyond servicability indicated by the evidence and conversations that have been had, and that HBs version of the F-14 is a line jet during a mid-life cycle deployment period, being used like the weapon it was; that is to say, what they romanticize about the jet is different than you. This has been a topic of conversation since well before release, and their choices regarding its condition were made clear here and elsewhere repeatedly before anyone ever had a chance to spend a dime on it. They explained what they were doing and why. They showed it off extensively. The photos validate what they were looking for, their crews and maintainers confirm it. The aircraft is presented in the form they want it shown. You don't have to appreciate it, but by the same token- you, or anyone else, repeatedly making the same argument over and over to that point isn't moving the ball forward, either- play is stopped, that particular game is over, and they've made that clear. The solution now is to request the servers you like to fly on to option in the replacement cockpit you want to use under their IC settings.

There is a great 3-mission campaign that comes with the. mirage: coup d’etat. It’s 3 missions are all good

Finished. It is uploaded into Users Download area of DCS. As soon as they are online you will be able to download them.

Your Mods never disappoint the user. High quality and excellent work. I really like the way you manage the different variants in the ME loadout section. A Mod like this must have taken many hours to develop and lots of bugs to crush. Many thanks for sharing and keep up the good work. Took the newly arrived MC-145 out for a test run (I added the option for a 19 missile Zuni rocket pod) and found out damage textures are present as I came across a ground-based AA unit. Outstanding! Fired two Hellfires at the ground unit but both overshot their target (strange behavior for a laser guided weapon). Luckily the bullet ridden aircraft made it home safety. More missions are planned for this terrific model. Thanks again, RustyGunner

Mach .9 is on the edge of where the autopilot is going to lose effectiveness because of transsonic shenanigans. I'll check if it's expected to be able to hold, but you might be going too fast. null Checking the NATOPs, See if the problem persists if you're not at M0.9

Almost there... nullnullnull

Razbam F-15E FAQ ver. 2 https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/544231925263630336/1008508215643873381/Frequently_Asked_Questions_ver_2.pdf

All the long journey now has an end point, the Cockpit is 95% complete, they will never be 100% really. My Facebook has a lot more pics and vids that cant be uploaded here due to size, but thanks all on the ED Forum, Open Hornet, @bnepethomas for all the Help over the last 2 years https://www.facebook.com/BenF18Sim/ Ben

There is a need for switch commands that automatically opens the corresponding guard, this is especially true for Armement master. In the current state, binding a key or HOTAS button/switch to enable Master Arm is pretty useless since you need to open guard before. Same logic can be applyed to other buttons or switches that have guard or safety cover.

Problem: Currently the SD-10 has a nozzle_exit_area value of 0.025 which translates to 7.024 inch (17.84 cm) diameter nozzle. When compared to its other contemporaries like the AIM-120C-5, the AIM-120C-5 has a nozzle_exit_value of 0.0132 which translates to a 5.104 inch (12.964 cm) diameter nozzle. The R-33 has a nozzle_exit_value of 0.025 as well. Examples: When comparing the nozzles of the AIM-120C-5 and the SD-10 with the model viewer, you can see that the SD-10 actually has a nozzle that is a little bit smaller than the AIM-120C-5's: AIM-120C-5, SD-10, and R-33's nozzles: Performance Data: I decided to conduct a test of the SD-10 with a nozzle_exit_area of 0.012668 (5 inch/12.7 cm diameter nozzle) and a performance drop can be seen if the SD-10 uses this smaller nozzle_exit_area. The same track was used for both tests. Google Sheets Link to Charts Conclusion: The current SD-10's nozzle_exit_area values are too great and cause an abundance of performance at higher altitudes (a maximum difference of Mach ~0.248 at 12km altitude).

I've been playing DCS for... jeez, at least 10 years. I've invested a lot of money. I have most modules, most maps. And I'm getting so frustrated lately I'm considering walking away from it all. What good are phenomenal modules like the Hornet, Viper, Apache, Tomcat.... Just about every module, just phenomenal work - what good are they when the base engine is a dinosaur? High end PCs can't make this game work well in VR, and crashes like this... I just lost another Liberation mission due to this crash. At 50 miles, check in for Case III approach, and crash. No other game I play requires so much work just to get it running smoothly, or crashes so frequently. I'm just finding more frustration than enjoyment lately. I truly, truly hope they are close to the engine revamp they are promising. Because all of the wonderful work on the modules is for naught when you can't use them to their potential. I want to help in any way I can, I really do, but aside from reporting bugs that often go unacknowledged, I don't know what else to do.

Sorry guys, it looks like I mistook an unofficial FAQ for an official one from razbam

A long press on the windows button on the G2 controllers will bring up the wmr overlay, you can turn the torch on and off there if required. Just not using voice would be simpler

It's a joke from Razbam. It's probably not even close. The MB-339 on the other hand...

Here. There is no conflict, cause MB-339 comes in next week, then F-15 the week after and my bank will then be broken.

Oh, I don't fly the F1, I just enjoy shooting it down Some F1 avid player will probably let you know how to do it.

Yea aside from F-4E F-4S I'd love to see a British Spey powered F-4, then we just need a Buccaneer and the and R09 Ark Royal and we can have the last of the "real" British aircraft carriers.

Hmm between the announcement of the Kola Peninsula map and that quote, I have to say that - for the first time in decades - I am becoming moderately optimistic about the prospect for naval warfare in DCS World. But we will see - I just hope that the bit about a wider improvement to ships' damage model also addresses ships' defence capabilities - i.e. countermeassures and ECM and isn't merely in response to DCS Hornet owners complaints about the effect of their Harpoons and HARMs in anti-shipping missions.

You can find it here : LLH_Counter_Insurgency.rar - Google Drive

Guys, can someone remind me please what this thread was initially about?

This is roundabout what Sinai is supposed to look like. Lotsa sand, but also a couple of green patches and a bit of water. It could be worse. What's really worse in my book is that we're supposed to play on this map in a 2000s timeframe. We need more CW assets to play with - no matter which map we're playing on.

The AGM-122 is not planned nor would it be a realistic weapon for the AH-64. The AGM-122 was never carried by the AH-64, and such munition stocks were depleted long before the variant of the AH-64D that is being modeled was fielded to the US Army. Regarding the Sidewinder, it was only ever test fired and was never fielded to the US Army neither.

Much more beautiful than the official KA-50 cockpit!

My two cents: I tend to second that. It seem american engine manufacturers often faced reliability and stall problems with their new - and very powerfull - engines when released (this is also true for the P&W F135 engine) because they make more complex engines they push to their bounds. French manufacturer have another history, and tend to make more simple design, less powerfull, but with reliability and maintenability as one of main goals (and this is also true for the M88-2).

Hi, first of all thanks for working on these great mods! Very much appreciated! Would you see a chance for creation of two aircraft mods (AI only of course) based on swedish developments? I would really like to have them in the game (especially when the Kola map arrives). These are: Saab Swordfish MPA (https://www.saab.com/newsroom/press-releases/2018/swordfish-redefines-tomorrows-maritime-patrol-aircraft & https://youtu.be/U0UcKYgjNIw) and Saab Globaleye AEW&C (https://www.saab.com/products/globaleye & https://youtu.be/hcL9DgEe5lQ). Both are based on Bombardier Global 6000. Best regards Ted

Hello! Can not but agree with "Knock-Knock" and the others! I would really have liked to see an early JA 37 with RB71, RB74 and the internal Oerlikon Cannon. And also arak in the secondary attack role ... Best regards: Otulf

As I said earlier who exactly builds given asset or map is irrelvent, however I do expect them to build something workable for the different modules. The ultimate test for whether an eco system works is can you build a multiplayer mission with the historical mode on using factions/nations that are likely to operate in a given theater.

Hi everyone, I was wondering if HB is considering adding tie down chains when the F-14 is static and linked to a Carrier by the Mission Editor. It would give a realistic naval picture of the deck I don't want to underestimate the work required but it seems a small job giving a great outcome. Cheers NF

To further elaborate, the reason for the holes and the reason the inlet is separated from the fuselage is to keep the air speed as even as possible across the face of the engine. Without those features the air would be slower on the inboard side and that asymmetry in flow would increase the risk of stalls. In this case, you’re trying to keep air speed high in the duct. The engines can’t handle supersonic flow, however, so the ramps change angle to create and maintain shockwaves across the inlets that slow supersonic air to subsonic speeds in the duct by compressing it. This process is much more efficient than compressing air in the engine itself and is pretty much mandatory on aircraft going Mach 2+. In this case you’re trying to keep air speed low (subsonic) in the duct. The reason you don’t see moving ramps on newer aircraft is because they’re either not designed to go that fast anymore (F/A-18) or they use brute force with very high static thrust engines (F16, F-22).

You're missing what Skate was stating. Everyone that wants to be able to remove the "CFT's" are failing to realize that at the loss of those, is also the loss of near all underbelly mountings. Some of the sensors and nearly all weapons the E model carries are through load bearing mounts on said CFTs. If you remove them, the F15E can then only carry 4 missiles and the 3 drop tanks (one per wing and centerline). Now call me stupid, but who in this thread wants a "slick" F-15E that can only carry 4 missiles? Because that's what you'd get if those fastpacks are removed.

Thank you and we look forward to bringing you the remaining features during early access.

Playable performance on the current Marianas map would be nice before they start new versions.

Honestly at this point I'm pretty fed up with this, with the freezing/lockup issue here makes me not even want to play DCS at this point. What is even the point of wasting my time starting up the jet, launching, only to freeze halfway to the AO 25-50% of the time. Honestly ED you need to prioritize working on your game engine and that is literally held together with popsicle sticks and gum from the early 2000's and also prioritize working on fixing bugs and core game mechanics rather then just releasing a new module every year that we dont need. (end of rant)

If you dropped the words "With the recent announcement of the Kola Peninsula map made" and cold war, this would still hold true. The Naval enviroment is drastically under developed. The Normandy/ Channel maps need the D-day invasion fleet. The up coming World War II Marianas need the Fast Carrier Task Force. Then the F-14 and up coming A-7, A-6 we need some 1980s era assets- Kid class destroyers, california class cruisers, and of course the 1980s Iowas.