Leaderboard

Got back into DCS after taking a couple years off for family priorities. I have to say the F/A 18C is an amazing accomplishment and so much has been added and fixed since my initial purchase. The vast amount of weaponry, 2 different targeting pods, A2A radar, flight performance, modeling, etc., The list goes on and on. Its a shame that some players think they purchased a 30MM navy jet for ~$80 US and want ALL Systems modeled perfectly with no bugs. If you want that, go to school, get accepted into the naval academy, put in the hours of training and maybe someday you can fly the real thing! If you don’t want to do all that, fly the damn plane, recognize how much you have for 80 bucks and stop whining. The plane is awesome as is the game. That’s right….GAME. it’s not real life…it’s a GAME. Pretend harder. Thanks ED for the many hours of challenging entertainment you have provided with the wide range of product offerings. I for one appreciate what has been created here and it just keeps getting better! I do have some experience since I’ve been flying combat sims since the Janes F15 and Falcon AT days. Man have we come a long way since then. Take care. Redd.

Hi just to reply here to your points. 1. I dont agree with you, our focus is realism however we do require public evidence. To say we have moved from it to sell more products seems strange. We have to sell products, we are a buisness, making money keeps us and our teams going, and keeps DCS alive for you all. 2. More than 50% of our team work on the core of DCS, reality is projects and improvements take time, always have and always will. We also spend a lot of time investigating peoples claims. 3. Again we are a buisness, we have to sell products to keep going. The forum is a beast and we have many areas of the bug report threads to check and investigating, some are easier to resolve than others, patience is required. 4. We would like to do many aircraft, but we are subject to international and local laws regarding data on aircraft, we are currently looking into doing the Mig-29 and when we have more news we will share it. 5. We are not neglecting Flaming cliffs, but we have no plans to add to it or create more, our focus is now on higher fedelity aircraft. Modern air combat is in progress for lower fedelity jets, but that is not DCS. 6. Again we have not caved into market pressure, we are doing what we can with the data and permissions we have to bring modules that are high quality to you all. We all get burnt out now and again, I hope you will take some time to reflect and rest up, It would be good to see you return when you are ready. Feel free to PM me or Nineline at any time to answer your question if you have any. Thanks Bignewy Associate producer Eagle Dynamics

Hi there, you seem that have generated this impression of the community that people expect as you'd put it 'a 30MM navy jet for $80'. However, what you will hopefully soon learn is that there are a *lot* of things that people accept we won't ever see because its just an $80 game as you say. Now sure, it would be *fantastic* if we could get those things, but its understandable that we won't. Now, having said that, there *are* some things that we do 'expect' (for lack of a better word). For the most part, the things we 'expect' are things where clear evidence exists from which such a feature could be modelled (eg MSI being the big one). So yes, we do 'whine' but we whine because we know DCS *can* be better, and it can be so much better with not a whole shedload of more work. What you won't see (hopefully ever) is people 'whining' for unrealistic expectations, for example CAS page was a big request and would be a fab feature, but its accepted now that not enough evidence exists. So its been dropped. As you've said, we've come such a long way since Janes F15 and Falcon AT. Now wouldn't it be a real shame if people suddenly stopped pushing for better? If people just accepted was is as is and moved on?

As we've said many times now, we are currently working on the helo pilots, once those are done, the team will work on fixed wing jet pilots It is a coming. There are a number of items for the 3rd party to resolve, and once done and fully tested, we look forward to releasing. Not every newsletter will be earth shattering news, but announcing a new aircraft is quite big. Cheer up, you never know what the future holds.

Yes, it actually is opinionated .. I found it very hard to agree with your points above, even trying to keep an open mind. Don't really know what is your point here ... is it because the F-16 (an 80 dollar aircraft) can beat the FC3 red fighters easily? We obviously play DCS for very different reasons ... I couldn't care less if I don't win a dogfight, I fly DCS because I want to experience piloting military aircrafts, be it a WW2 plane, or an unarmed helicopter, or a jet latest gen fighter .. I'm not flying DCS to "win", for me DCS is more a simulator than a deathmatch game. Sad to see you go, DCS has a lot of defects, but I can't imagine ever turning my back on it, I enjoy its modules far too much for that.

Вообще конечно хотелось бы один нормальный красный самолет 70-х от ED именно. И его хватит за глаза. А тема со сторонними модулями сейчас всему проекту по моему мнению боком немного выходит. Выпущено их не мало и одни носятся как угорелые на низких высотах (Ajs и m-2000) другие тянут за уши к четвертому поколению по виражу (M-2000 и F-14A) у третьих физика с другой планеты (газель и харриер), а некоторые собраны из смеси скриптов (миг-21). И вот вам пожалуйства каша мала в которой хрен разберешься что правильно а где маркетинг для продаж.

И не будет. Самые вкусные синие модели уже разобрали. Что остается, какой-нибудь не пришей кобыле English Electric Lightning? Уверен, полтора ветерана, которые на нем летали, будут очень довольны, равно как и 3,5 энтузиаста. А дальше-то что? Из чего прибыль извлекать, чем разработку окупать? По-моему, у нас начинается кризис жанра на почве перенасыщения рынка. И на этом месте позволю себе высказать мысль, что красные модули покупаем не только лишь мы, но много кто еще хотел бы это делать. К ним интерес есть, и немалый. Вот теперь и посмотрим, как будет развиваться наша экосистема и какие силы у нас тут действуют, законы спроса, предложения и рентабельности или что-то такое, что к бизнесу отношения уже не имеет.

After more than 10 years flying this amazing simulator I have decided to make one final post as a sign of fare well. I hope this post won't get deleted as the contents might not be in line with the company policy. I've seen this sim bring me much joy over the years, but as the platform gained popularity I've witnessed many dark moments about it also, which ultimately led me to a decision to drop it. For who ever has time or cares to read this post, I would like to briefly state the reasons why: 1. Eventually the sim moved from a "let's have as close as possible to real life" to "we need to sell as much as we can" and "we need to keep paying customers happy". 2. My impression is that every time core issues are addressed on the support forums, there is an "army" of users that try to discredit such claims by spamming the threads with nonsense and "watering out" the original issue. 3. Every post that is in line with the company's "let's sell more products" get swiftly replied to and marked as "investigating" (yes I mean you "holy" AIM-120 posts ), but anything critical gets neglected, buried under a bunch of useless information (please see point above) and ultimately conditioned by the famous "provide valid track" clause - not every nonsense that happens in DCS MP can replicated easily on a private track 4. Simulator clearly moved from Soviet - US era, to "hey we have all the documents we need to produce high-fidelity NATO aircraft/weapons which are not classified" to "sorry we can't use any Soviet hardware 'cause information on these needs to be provided to use by unclassified public sources" - double standards if you ask me, but this is just my impression. 5. Neglecting one thing that keept this thing (DCS) alive since its inception: "Flaming Cliffs" or as it was called in the good ol' days (personal opinion) "Lock On" \m/ 6. Last, and the most important thing for me personally, caving in to market pressure instead of pursuing realism in one way or the other. I know my post might seem opinionated and I am ready to accept that. If I am being truly honest to my self, DCS died for me the moment it became "pay to win platform", but I have ignored this fact for some years in hope that I was wrong. Since my adventure with the sim started in the days of "Lock On 1.2" I felt the need to post this in the "Flaming Cliffs" part of the forum. I would also like to thank @dundun92@GGTharos@Falcon_S @mousepilot@okopanja@Ironhand and many, many others that were there over the years trying to make this "sim" better. P.S. If any of the admins has time, please check my "stale" post about the 120's contrails issue, I've provided real live proof. "So long and thanks for all the fish!" All the best, Nix

The exact same information is available in the Hornet code as you TUC a contact: Abbreviated Callsign, Aircraft Type and Speed. For hostiles, Aircraft type and Speed. Is there any reason why these can't be added to the F-16 as well? Without this 'Expanded Link 16 data' It makes the HSD display pretty useless, as you can never tell who anyone is..... It's a MASSIVE glaring omission to your Link 16 depiction. Hopefully this is more than just a wishlist item.

В виду дефицита времени на освоение модулей появился новый тренд их коллекционировать

hello, this is F1BEM, from a fantastic book with Many -26- F1 cockpits with differences explained. you can get it here : (download) https://dogfight-editions.com/fr/hors-series/2-cocardes-digital-hors-serie-n01.html for a mere 5€

I just learned recently that I can give my flags names instead of using numbers and it's made complex missions so much easier. Giving my Flags variable names and not numbers is a game changer. I don't longer have to keep a spreadsheet of what Flag number I'm using and what it's doing. Are there any limitations to the type of characters you can use or length of the Flag name?

DCS World is a simulation game. One of the many types of games out there. Also I am not sure what this has to do with a topic called "Is the Hornet complete yet?" Lets stay on topic and not go down silly paths.

Потихоньку осваиваю проектирование из листовой металла. Надо еще разбираться что можно а что нет, как это потом на производство готовить. В планах сделать открытый проект руда, ну время покажет. Ручка модифицированная от ф-16. Рычаг руда планируется сбоку, дабы освободить место на корпусе. По механизму загрузки пока придумываю, надо что то простое эффективное и легкое в производстве. Корпус из листового металла 2мм., т.е. лаз. резка и гибка. По габаритам будет где то в этих пределах 245*164*55мм, крепежные отверстия как у кабана. На корпусе три вырезанных окна под установку панелей, на панелях будут размещаться различные органы управления. То есть любой желающий может напечатать панели с нужным ему кол-вом кнопок тумблеров и т.д. На корпусе ближе к основанию ручки оставлено место под установку дуги с детентами, примерно как на фото. В общем как то так

Well, that was easy! Make a wish and get it answered in less than 60 days!! I'm going to make some more. (No, I would guess they were working on it long before I posted this wish.) Of course, it could be 1 or 2 years before Early Access. But at least it's on the design table!! Thanks, Grinnelli Designs!! I'll be flying this one in the Vietnam Map. Oh, wait..."DCS Wish List, may we have a Vietnam Map? " There, let's see if we get that promised within 60 days, now.

Sure okay, whatever, still enjoying the Hornet very much. No other product like it. This from a long time BMS flier.

Its official. The F-100D had been announced for development for DCS by Grinnelli Designs. One more aircraft that brings us closer to a potential Vietnam map in the near future..

I need F-104!

Ахах, Сейбр-100, всё стабильно... Давайте дальше Фе-106, ну а "красным" наверное БАНО починят, чтоб ярко не светили)

Until the WW2 asset pack and maps are free nothing will change. The way the system is set up now is a huge barrier to entry and has stunted the growth of the WW2 player base. The community has been very vocal about this for years, but ED has been stubborn and set in their ways. WW2 languishes as a result. All of this despite some amazing work with flight and sound modeling, and big improvements to damage modeling. It's really a bit of a travesty that they've stymied themselves with their sales model and done severe damage to the online community and the entire product as a result. Reasonable suggestion: Make the assets and ww2 maps free and available to play online -- this will help grow the small, stagnant community. Charge for SP and to be able to use them in the mission editor if costs need to be recouped. I feel that ED might ultimately see an increase in sales with this approach, as more people will end up interested in the product and the online community of players and servers is able to grow without any impediments.

DCS develop Screenshots

It's going to have a FLIR-pod and a HUD that allows for FLIR-picturing, which dates it early 80s'ish.

Are we just plucking figures out of thin air now? When we are ready to take the hornet out of early access we will let you all know. Until then we continue to work on our features list from the store page and from Wags posts. I get it, some of your are passionate about the hornet and have different ideas of what can be publicly modelled and what can not be, we will not break any ITAR rules when it comes to our F/A-18C. thank you

Hello... I have made these new sliders for 3D printing since I was tired of my hand hitting against the original high levers, especially in VR. https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:5446516

Better Trees Mariana Islands V1 Flickers reduced. Higher resolution diffuse textures. Actual tree photos used for billboard textures. Colors adjusted DOWNLOAD INSTALL: Extract "Mods" folder to main DCS install folder or use mod manager Not IC SAFE

I don't know if it's really that dark in a real Mrage F1 cockpit, but it's a game, it's a pain to play if it's too dark

WinterH pointed out some of the issues that I too concluded a few years ago. Sure, maps are getting larger indeed. This is made possible by DCS players buying ever more powerful computers to run it. Can't make a giant super-map sell well if it gives you 3fps before introducing other aircraft enter the picture! For my perspective, the issue isn't really about map area anymore really... it's object count. Trucks, buildings, fences, we expect all of that on any map. But both the nation and the conflict are extremely famous for the super-dense foliage, the trees, the multilayered canopies, the bushes, the tall grass. Personally I don't wanna fly "Vietnam: Desert Edition". I would want to fly the area as it appeared in the 1960's, and that means litterally TRILLIONS of bushes. TRILLIONS of tall grass blades. Last but not least, TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of trees. This is an absolute requirement, or it won't look like it should. At this moment, any scene with that dense of object count, would likely cause our GPU's to catch fire and burn down your room, maybe even your residence! Then you gotta price out a new GPU, new computer, maybe a new VR set, convince the insurance investigator it wasn't yer fault, find a new place to live... it all gets a little bit annoying. At this moment. Remember, there are still people struggling with making Syria work well, and the Mariannas map sees people struggling with that one, despite the islands being tiny postage stamps... both observations support my theory about object count being the real obstacle. In the next few years however, new methods of handling object counts, and rendering shortcuts and API functions and procedures, may allow for such insane object counts without breaking a sweat, and do so with many AI and human multiplayers in the same scene. Thus, I predict that the impossible may soon become the "ok let's do this!". Were a Vietnam map to come about... then that opens the doors for the WW2 islands campaigns, and Germany in the Black Forrest too.

Very much. Thank you. Very, very appreciated. Sorry guys for being so rude, but you have to listen to peoples opinions without trashing them. I know, we all know, what it feels like to have your air force plane done right in this very hi standard sim. I really appreciate it and value. one or two people might complain for nothing, but if you see quite a bunch of old pilots telling you the same thing, do not dismiss it so fast. Really a huge thanks again. Looking forward to the M in the future, but right now very happy dropping iron with the CE.

I wish for some creativity in module choice from 3rd party devs. Like a C-130 Hercules tanker, a V-22 Osprey, or an E-2D Hawkeye or something. Or a civilian asset pack to make DCS seem more alive.

Harrier до (FSR.1, GR.3) и после (AV-8B plus) запланировал РАЗБАМ. Строить МиГ-21ПФ пока никто не актуален. Помните, у ED есть Ка-50-3 и вроде модуль МиГ-29. Mirage III и Миг-23 от RAZBAM на ранней стадии, а также A-7E от FlyingIron Simulators, они еще не размещают информацию на форуме, следите за ними на канале Discord для получения дополнительных обновлений. Насчет новых сторонних производителей (F-100D, Kfir) , помните, что они фигурируют на форуме как создатели модов. Теперь прыгают, чтобы получить статус сторонних как IndiaFoxtEcho и MBB-339A. Ходят слухи, что Су-24 может быть построен по величине 3, по какой-то информации о удушении в вашем канале FB. Проблема здесь в том, что российские третьи лица больше не входят в ED. Есть проблемы с получением информации или формированием групп? Неплохо увидеть несколько интересных самолетов, таких как Ту-16, Ильюшин Ил-28, Ка-29, Яковлев Як-28, Ту-28, Сухой Су-9, Бериев Бе-12 и другие в начале и середине холодной войны.

Maybe for a future edition? A civilian Toyota?

It's currently modeled as the latter; time of flight from Bx8 to Bx9, anything else I don't think would make sense. When I place them I usually just place them VERY far away from Bx8, that way I can guarantee that this will not happen. If you want to calculate the distance at which it needs to be beyond, you can do it by doing this: (0.9*340)*30 = 9180 m ≈ 9.2 km ≈ 5 nm Yes I know the parentheses are not required, but I think it looks nicer/ is easier to read. 0.9 mach, the speed at which the RB15 fly at 340, the speed of sound in m/s. This will change with temperature, 340 is for ISA (15°c), this should be the only variable in the above 30, for the 30 seconds of flight needed So having Bx9 at any distance further away than this should result in the RB15's being release, at least due to the ToF limit. Well not quite everything, the background is still a modded version so the colors look a bit weird. That's why I noticed it. You're very welcome. Correct, RB15 only use Bx6- Bx9. The other ones (Bx1-Bx5) are used for navigation/ nav fixes. Launch will be inhibited if: a single turn is >135 deg the sum of all turn are >135 deg (with regard to their sign) If any one of these two is >135 deg, you will not be able to drop the missile(s). While of course also taking the two other requirements into account as well. So the answer would be: No and yes

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/544231925263630336/1008508215643873381/Frequently_Asked_Questions_ver_2.pdf ^Latest FAQ made by Notso.

+1 Especially now an F-4 (Heatblur) and an F-100D Super Sabre are in the works(see 19th August Newsletter).....it would be very nice to have the MiG-19S version. And yes I would pay for the S version too.....we need it RAZBAM....so please consider it.

The Viggen is a 90s updated version, yet it's always added to fly on cold war servers with the early MiGs, F86,Mig21 and,F-5. So a slightly too new letter doesn't matter that much. As long as you got the weapons restrictions.

I would love to have both the Thunderjet and thunderstreak

You are absolutely right! +1 There is also the fact that you can touch and feel knobs and switches in real life! This makes it easier in RL to find and operate switches in a dark cockpit. In a sim we only have visuals.

why are developers and fans so stubborn? its NOT practical its not useful it does NOT add to immersion to NOT see the cockpit switches in a clickable SIM. Geez, how hard is it to understand? I bet real pilots see in 3D and can tell where a switch IS, in a 2D monitor its harder. Simple as that. Is it going to change in the next update or further down? (Thanks).

Just to add some more data for the devs: In multiple tests I can reliably fix the stuttering by switching the PNVS off for a period of time (sometimes 10 seconds off is enough, sometimes it needs 60secods or more). Any means of not having the PNVS on screen works, including external views, ALT-TAB out of DCS, alternate night vision device (NVG and TADS both work). After doing something not using the PNVS for 60+ seconds, go back and it is smooth again. Also noted - time from mission start to first stutter appears to shorten the more you adjust the FLIR controls.

@Cmptohocah Sad to see you go. I've been enjoying reading your posts which have a lot of knowledge. No burning of bridges I hope. Please return one day!

While I agree with you @Strikeman, @Mr_sukebe 's words are too true on this forum. I would also like to have some "list" or notices on what and when the devs are doing things. But people just hold it against ED, so it's really not fruitful. Cheers!

The other responses go over the procedure for TPOD handoff and manual tracking, which is good to know but didn’t actually answer your specific question. The reason your maverick didn’t release is because it isn’t locked on to anything. No lock, no release. When you designate a target with the TPOD, the maverick may fail to get acquire a lock. When the maverick has a lock on a target, the tracking gate (crosshairs) close. In the picture you provided, the crosshairs are still open. The easiest/quickest remedy is to hit TMS up with the maverick screen SOI to attempt a lock, as skywalker22 shows in his video. Sometimes it takes several attempts, especially if you are at 5nm or more. Below are examples of an unlocked and locked maverick screen (taken from Chuck’s guide). You can also see this in skywalker22’s video. Note how the crosshair closes the gap once it acquired a lock.

You can add the F-100D Super Sabre to that list as in work

Latest announced Sinai map is to have a 700x700 km DETAILED area, and about twice that undetailed, and that is mostly just desert. Razbam's recent South Atlantic is the largest map currently, and great majority of it is ocean, with relatively little detailed regions afaik, but I may be wrong. Only heavily urbanized AND jungle map right now is Marianas, and it is similar to what Vietnam would be in that respect, except, unlike Vietnam, it is TINY and it performs absolutely horribly despite that. The only way we'll get a Vietnam map with current tech is if it's limited in size to only a certain region, people need to already forget about an expanded map of whole theater, and possibly also also a lot of the detail abstracted/omitted. Latter scenario doesn't seem like something great majority of the community care for. From what I can see, DCS: Vietnam is not fesaible as a map right now, nor do we have many relevant aircraft, majority of the touted aircraft are wrong versions that are significantly more capable then variants served in war, and in ways you can't disable with mission editing, altering the experience. Right now, I personally much, much prefer us keep getting later 70s-80s versions of aircraft, as that fits beautifully into an existing niche in DCS, as well as being frankly the more interesting versions imo. Once those are done, and map/rendering/performance tech is way ahead of where it is now, then, and only then I wouldn't be hostile to the DCS: Vietnam idea. Right now, while I do VERY MUCH understand the desire for it, it is neither really feasible, nor desirable imo. The upcoming A-6 and A-7 are almost certainly going to be 80s, perhaps even early 90s birds. Two versions of F-4E will be one just past Vietnam, but can be reasonably roleplayed as a late war bird, and another that is from 80s with vastly different systems. F-5 and MiG-21 both are wrong versions that are considerably better than those served in the conflict. I can count more, but I see no point. If you are happy with making do with these, then I suppose more power to you. It wouldn't really be anything like the realities and unique challenges of that war, but if that isn't what you are looking for, then I suppose, yes, there is enough in sim to do a pretend 'Nam theater.

I'm surprised that the R&D team didn't actively discover the fact that the cockpit was too dark during more than a year of research and development, This is the item that should be listed as the top priority for improvement, otherwise many people will return it immediately after finding such so dark cockpit after purchasing the module on Steam.

It's okay to be so dark in a real cockpit, but don't forget that we're driving on a computer screen, which is different from the human eye's vision I said :it's a game, it's a pain to play if it's too dark

I really hope their performance upgrades gives benefits to VR players as well. Here's Hoping