Leaderboard

Dear all, Much of the work is focused on fixing bugs and tuning systems to first have a solid foundation to work from. However, IAT/MTT are in active development as is initial FCR/RF Hellfire and LB Net. Given the complexity of such tasks, we have no date estimates at this time. Once IAT/MTT are available, we plan to offer the -64 in the free trial program. Outside of those systems, much work is ongoing: - Performance Level of Detail (LOD) models - New pilot models and animations (SP and MC) - Updating the PERF page (quite a deep rabbit hole) - Continued tuning of the FCS / yaw offset - Ability to change seats in MC (in internal testing) - New voice overs for flight members (2, 3, and 4) - Continued George AI refinements - Tuning TSE/LMC behavior There are of course other items in work, but these are the primary focus. Kind regards, Wags

Been experimenting with the Mirage's pitch behavior and ive noticed some interesting trends when you go heavy on the stick, such as being able to rotate the jet all the way to and beyond -180deg of AoA. it can be done with the pitch damper on aswell. Cant lie, its been pretty funny but I figure the devs would appreciate the information. Trackfile demoing the problem below. MirageBFMgUN.trk

Normal Software doesn't kill hardware, DCS Didnt kill your mainboard, your mainboard failed likely due to a design, airflow, or power problem that caused a catastrophic failure, I just hate seeing reviews on steam that claims a game killed their PC, when most of the time it's poor Airflow and Heat management, and some gamers just play and ignore the temps and power draw on their components then when it fails, blame the game they were running at the time.

I've been helping out with maintenance on the Collings F-4D, which is undergoing a maintenance check and inspection. We have a lot of the panels off, so I thought it would be a great opportunity to get the camera out and show what goes on underneath the panels. Not a lot of people outside of maintainers get to see the inner workings of the aircraft. In this video I do a top to bottom walk around and take a deep look inside the Phantom. So while we wait patiently for the release of Heatblur's F-4E, please enjoy!

WIP items of the Mirage F1 CE: Autopilot: o Implementation of R and G modes. o Fixing oscillations in some regimes. o Mode logic, failures and tests overhaul. Implementation of S530 F ‘supermatra’. o The S530 D used as a placeholder in some AI models will be replaced by the F variant. Full implementation of the intercom (will enable communication with JTAC). Adjust adverse yaw behaviour. Pedal toebrake and control stick animations will be added. Implementation of miscellaneous armament: o CC - 420 external cannons. o JL100. o Etc… Implementation of countermeasures and jamming pods: o BARAX. o PHIMAT. Radar: o BZ short range mode. o Different detection ranges and target visibility conditions in IC and HA modes. o Radar noise visual appearance in various modes. o Elevation control in V1 mode for 7 and 15 nm ranges. o Radar slaving of the IR missiles’ seekers. Optical Sight: o Radar related symbology logic - relative velocity, range, correct display sequence with the radar tracking a target. o Gun sight is not correctly fed by the radar measured target distance yet. RWR: o Addition of specific F1 RWR sounds. New pilot 3D model with new helmet, 3 variants. Improved external model textures. Cockpit panels texture overhaul (dark cockpit) due to game lighting. Option to adjust the speed of the fuel selection dial. The Flight Manual has to be completed. New missions will be added over time. Main known issues of the Mirage F1 CE: Wrong number of flares at mission start (14 instead of 15). Jettison of CLB4 bombs when infinite munitions are on does not stop bombs from respawning. R530 jettison should eject the pylon too. Clickable sounds for the shock-cones and high sensitivity nose wheel steering not audible. Control stick switches sounds not playing. First preset radio channel is tied in both radios in ME. Some liveries are inaccurate. AI flight model is underperforming. We are aware of other issues that we will solve over time.

Further video episodes: and this one came out today:

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.

Piper PA-18 Super Cub The Piper PA-18 Super Cub is a two-seat, single-engine monoplane. Introduced in 1949 by Piper Aircraft, it was developed from the Piper PA-11, and traces its lineage back through the J-3 to the Taylor E-2 Cub of the 1930s. In close to 40 years of production, over 10,000 [1] were built. Super Cubs are commonly found in roles such as bush flying, banner towing and glider towing. https://www.dropbox.com/s/e5k51wa5dmngyx6/Piper-PA-18 V 2.7.rar?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/tt7n1s98ok0egwy/Piper PA-18 Super Cub V1.0.rar?dl=0

In one post you say people should be paid for their work -- that they aren't animals -- yet in the previous you deride people for not continuing to work (for free) on their passion project and/or not relinquish the fruits of their hard labor to the community magnanimously. I will not say much more than that other than I find it to be extremely distasteful. To be clear, when I said "free" in regards to the asset pack/maps, I meant free access for online multiplayer. Nobody is expecting work to go unpaid. In fact, I suspect that a more popular online showing for the WW2 product would lead directly to increased sales of modules (and maps/asset packs for enjoyment offline or to author missions) and ultimately more return on investment. You can be either one of two minds: That a strong multiplayer community drives overall sales. That online enjoyment of the product is a small portion of overall sales. In either case, it makes sense from a business standpoint that owning the maps/asset packs should not be a requirement to play on an online server running them. Either this open access for online play is a driver of more sales, or it wouldn't have that much of an impact financially anyway. In both cases, being able to join these servers without a purchase of these items would be huge in helping to grow a stronger WW2 community. The alternative, as we can see plain as day by the current state of the online community, is a product that is struggling to grow and gain the traction it deserves.

Thanks guys, I'll report this important information to devs. EDIT: Devs say a fix is coming with the next OB update. No need to install the A-4E mod (unless you want to fly this bird of course).

Как я понял, вся эта погоня за неадекватно детализированной графикой обусловлена банальным маркетингом. Истинных ценителей жанра, которые понимают- что такое и зачем нужен баланс графики в авиасимуляторах, относительно не так много, а продавать продукт желательно как можно больше. Поэтому на графику, как на витрину, отдают столько внимания. Пример MSFS2020. Стоило ему выйти, как сразу, откуда не возьмись, как почки на деревьях по весне, появились толпы псевдо виртуальных пилотов, куча блогеров снимающих стримы для ютьюба. Делающих обзоры и т.д. Увы. Но маркетинг в большей степени основан на человеческой психологии. А она такова что большинству нужна именно картинка. А летать,... Летать они все равно не будут. Но деньги занесут. С другой стороны , учитывая как часто что ED обновляет модели. То возможно имеет смысл один раз сделать и забыть еще лет на 20. Но еще раз, не перестаю подчеркнуть, что главное в игре это игра и гемплей. Графика быстро привыкается. Даже технологии VR реальности, лично мне хватило на неделю. После чего я уже перестал обращать на нее существенное внимание.

No real need for this rhetoric. Poly has already admitted since this post they need to work on the Gazelle and intend to, however they are finishing the Kiowa first. Afterwards they will turn towards working the Gazelle's flight model and improving where need be. I find it insulting keyboard warriors like yourself tend to think they know what's best for everyone and how a helicopter fly's when you have no real world experience. Pretty easy to take an educated guess you were never an officer in the military based on how you type and your use of grammar. Poly has numerous Kiowa pilots testing the module so to insult the product before release is to insult the test pilots ensuring its accuracy, who also flew the real thing in the Army. Not really a good impression to leave if you expect anyone to take anything you say serious.

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.

I think ED should produce this module. The F-100D is a development from the F-86 Sabre. It even uses a version of the same A-4 gunsight. I'm sure there are other commonalities, even though it is an entirely changed airframe and engine, of course. The F-100 was the world's first fighter capable of supersonic speed in level flight. The MiG-19 was a close second (I believe). We already have the MiG-19 module in DCS. How about the F-100? The F-100 flew combat missions over Vietnam from 1964 to 1971. I believe the type flew more missions over Vietnam than any other fighter, 360,283 combat sorties. More sorties than were flown by 15,000 P-51 Mustangs in WWII...and we have the P-51D in DCS. 1,274 F-100D's were built. Its four M39 20mm revolver cannons (like the pair in the F-5E) have a combined rate of fire close to that of the M61 Vulcan. It's a gun fighter, but like the F-86F, it can carry AIM-9 Sidewinders, too. Mostly, it's a fighter-bomber, though. It's similar to the F-86F and F-5E, sure, but it is a historical aircraft that played a larger role than the F-5E. But unlike the F-86F and F-5E, the F-100D can refuel in flight. And I think it would be fun to fly in DCS. I think the version to choose should be the same as that at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC. North American F-100D Super Sabre | Smithsonian Institution (si.edu)

There is a company which makes strategy games, they are famous of releasing tons of dlcs, but not a single dlc is required for multiplayer fun, only host is required to own dlcs, every other player can access content with base game only through MP, some ppl may say that this is big loose for company so many ppl will not buy dlcs, is it? I think no, it act as advert i think that this approach amplify dlcs buys. We can say that WW2 DCS MP is very small, but if no one will invest in it, it will remain that way. What about ppl who did buy asset pack, they can not enjoy it in MP because, lots of ppl who don't have this pack can not join their servers, so this limits full experience too, if we look that way. What i would suggest, is to change status of asset pack as a module, because right now situation looks like that, if i don't own DCS F-16 i can not join any server which has this plane in mission. Some how for ED it is ok to shoot down F-16 while you don't own it, but you can not shoot or bomb unit which is part of ww2 asset pack in MP. I don't agree with that all maps should be available in MP, but this asset pack really cut legs of ww2 experience and enjoyment.

If I hold my breath I die so I won't. Anyway. I wouldn't mind a KA-6, since we know HB is already working on an A-6. But that's not what I meant. I really meant creativity. A C-130 Hercules is something we don't already have in some form or another, in DCS. I has multiple uses (not unique in usecases but this plane in DCS would be unique: 4 engines, big & slow, not a fighter, bomber or another kind of attack machine), and as I said, it's really different, and most importantly, still in use today in the real world, so it's not bound to some specific timeperiod (i.e. "cold war" hype which I don't have interest in, none whatsoever, hence I'd like something more general). AWACS, I know, but still would be very unique within DCS. Also, it's carrier capable, which adds another challenge with these types of planes. Osprey would be my first wish for a 3rd party dev who's getting creative. It stands out due to its looks, its versatility, and the way one can fly it. Lastly. These were just on the top of my head. I just meant I'd wish for a 3rd party dev to be creative in module choice, surprise us! That is why I also mentioned a civilian asset pack. I would love that anyway. I know there are a few mods for that but some of us want to keep DCS mod-free and clean. Furthermore, some civilian assets like boats (yachts, coast guard, utility ships), airliners (a small one like a A320/B737 and a bigger one like A350/B747. Maybe also a smaller one like a Learjet. Citation or Gulfstream, next to the Yak-40 already in DCS). Again, I know I know, there are mods already. But I and others don't like mods.

I currently especially need the SLEW function of HSI, because I really want to completely get rid of the dependence on F10

I'm not sure how helpful this will be, but I have discovered I only have the sound issues when I don't have any mods installed. I installed the community a4 and the Hercules mod which weirdly fixed the sound issues. As soon as I uninstalled them the issues came back. I also noticed when I had these mods installed, some of the textures were missing on some of the liveries- mainly only the wing textures. I have no idea how having these mods would affect the mirage sound, but that is my experience. EDIT- just did some testing and can confirm it is the community A4 that fixes the mirage sound when it is installed in my case. I uninstalled/ reinstalled it multiple times, and each time it was installed, the mirage sound was fine, and each time it was uninstalled, the mirage sound was broken. Maybe this would explain why some people have the issues and others don't?

I think the OP just decided to use a clickbait title for his thread. Why? Who knows Also, I don't know why I fell for the clickbait

Ах, этот лязг мечей владельцев RTX XXXX и GTS YYY.

He needs to post about the thud next. The hun will be awesome.

I'm not intended to be rude. It's not some angry rant from a "new DCS user", relatively newly registered as for this account yes however not so new into the game. I just want to point out its not "just dark", the texturing is objectively substandard and I already gave my reasoning, briefly but nonetheless. Detailed reasoning as follows: Metallic channel: In practice you should only assign metallic property to exposed metal parts: here for example the seat buckle, worn out painted parts, or some glass materials. Instead metal value is assigned to most parts of cockpit, including fabrics. And its not like Dassault was painting the cockpit in metallic paint for aesthetic reasons. And how the stitches on the fabric radar scope hood are metal? It completely blows my mind, metaphorically not figuratively. How it should be handled if you may ask? ED's work as example: The common approach is, DO NOT arbitrarily assign metal values to objects. And to be honest, nothing else post-LOMAC has been as-confusing as what's presented in this Mirage F1 here. Deficiency in details: For example the screws on sidewall. The screws are textures rather than 3d mesh, which is completely understandable as to save polygons (which is not the case i'll later explain). First of all, as common approach you model the screws in high poly mesh then later bake into lower ones. Here the devs were taking a short cut by texturing the screws directly, which is okay as long as it could be detailed enough (not so here). The key part being, just see how distorted they are, the projection is completely wrong. Once again they took a shortcut by painting directly from UV. It's amazing such an error in conspicuous area rolled into public release instead of being debugged earlier in the development. rivets on inconspicuous parts as well Poorly baked AO maps AO maps directly effect your shading, the blacker they are in grayscale, the darker it will be rendered, shadow-wise. Again using ED's work as standard. How it should be baked: How should not do: To the point im suspecting dev's were using curvature maps by mistake for the AO maps. ill-optimised 3d mesh The screw at the top of your trim hat: 400+ triangles You may also want to check other switches that have semi sphere, couple hundred tris each. Things should be optimized to improved performance are simply not done. These mistakes are easily avoidable, and some are rookie-level even. @Rudel_chw take my opinions above with a grain of salt. In terms of art quality, the mirage is off the standard. I'm not being condescending or over-dramatic here, overall this is easily THE worst since 2016 even including the MiG-21's at its release.

Check the shop. You can get every warbird with the channel map for 60 quid. That is a discount if youd buy each on its own instead. And from that purchase you get miles points which in turn gets you a discount for your next purchase. Also you have 50% off of your first purchase as a new client. Tbf dcs is a totally different beast as far as sims goes and not everyone will like it. You can try out each module for 2 weeks but itll take longer to actually "learn" any warbird as each has its kinks. Now if you want people to buy bundles which are more expensive than buying a single plane that comes at 50% of its price as a new client you might just make people feel even more frustrated havin burned more money on something they might not enjoy as much. Caucasus might not "feel" right... but to get some flying hours stacked up its good enough. And your imagination will do the rest as the landscape is vast and versatile enough.... So far ive purchased the pony at 50%discount for the entry. Bought asset pack which is like 20 dollars? Bought normandy when they had it on discount. With the stacked up miles ive bought the dora for 18 quid. If thats not "cheap" i dont know what it is... Also, if you want stuff free, expect a bitter taste after the sweetness has vanished... People have high demands on here... but expect to be asked for super low prices... well i wonder if youd work for a quid an hour and so 50+ hrs. People be furious... The ww2 stuff is fine in its current stage imho. Its a relatively new branch and hence not as competative as the modern stuff.. nothing that cant be changed over time. But it takes patience... something many people dont seem to have...

"Yeehaw, back to working on weapons & sensors Pictured: Targeting with the velocity vector" "So for you guys wondering the A7 has a few different targeting options: 1. NORM ATTACK mode - Visual aiming on the HUD via the velocity vector (shown above) or by slewing the aiming cursor and designating. Leads to a CCRP drop. Allows for precise targeting during ingress with only a visual 2. BOC (Bomb on Coordinates) mode - as it sounds; leads to CCRP drop 3. CCIP 4. Radar bombing - similar to norm attack, but targeting with the AG Radar All modes except CCIP can also be used in offset mode. Offset mode is used when the target is obscured or more easily located by reference a nearby landmark; it will aim weapons at a chosen offset from the current target. The large amount of targeting options, when combined with the various release parameters (salvo modes, interval drops etc) gives the pilot a a great arsenal to deal with almost anything on the ground. You have limited guided weapon options though, so being a successful A7 pilot will depend largely on mission planning & pilot skill" - A post from @MikeNolan on our Discord channel.

Good afternoon fellow aviators. I'd like to throw in the Vietnam War Map. We really, really need this in our lives. This would give way for third party developers to make the AT-28, F8U-2NE (J) - in work, A-37B, A-6E, F-4E (B) - released , B-57B - Data collection underway, MiG-17 (J5) - in work, MiG-19P (J6) - released, UH-1H - released, OV-10A - released, O-1E, O-2A , AH-1G - in work, Mi-8MTV2 - released, MiG-21 - released, A-4E -released, A-7E - in work, F-5E - released, F-100D - in work, B-52H - in work , F-105D or F - NOT HAPPENING ANYMORE, AH1 - inwork and countless other air and ground assets ect. UNDERLINED TEXT IS A LINK TO THE PROJECT THREAD OR WEBSITE SEE BLACK OPERATING AREA *UPDATED 25MAR2024

This is the best one: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/personal/licensing/trial/ And you're not old by any means. There are guys flying DCS in their 80s.

Hi all, been a gamer for too many years to count, used to play Gunship on ZX spectrum .yes I’m that old. Found DCS accidentally via YouTube, been flying the frogfoot by keyboard ,so thought I’d get the X52 hotas , delivery due Wednesday. what’s best pack to buy for a starter.

One recon is in Estonia:

There will be some improvements soon. However, above tests not qute correct. It's better to set missile launch distance as NEZ for AI in advanced waypoint options. The main reason of such behaviour is not tracking issue, but low closing velocity(rear aspect after maneuver) and lack of missile energy.

I can't, I'm not a US citizen. And while I'd be more than happy to shell out the money to gather all the pubs, the lawyer fees would be even more expensive and I'm not too keen on figuring out what the federal prison system is like. From the inside.

Thank you, glad you enjoyed it! My original plan for the channel was primarily DCS content, but since I've been involved with helping out and working on the F-4, I want to tell its story as well. She's one of the few, if not only, operational F-4 Phantoms in the U.S. I have more F-4 content in the works as we do more maintenance to her, plus the ground service equipment involved.

F-15C LN 86-172 from Lakenheath base:

This in bold ^ Completely agree.

If "OP" is me... I WISH I had an F-105D. ...now watch, I'll be misunderstood and get a real F-105 delivered to my house that won't fit in my backyard. If I only get 3 wishes, that may have just used them up! Now I'll never get that E-1B Tracer or KA-3B Skywarrior I wanted. ...I'm trusting the F-4B Phantom II will be in-works one of these years. I've got a stack of wishes in one hand and virtual aircraft in the other.

The replays fail due to the FM being EFM I am looking into fixing that problem. You guys want more Skins, Skin below was made by " Flanker Sky" Discord Member.

Thanks @Rudel_chw for giving me the opportunity to comment those videos with: "This Notso is pretty darn cool!" I already like the Razbam Strike Eagle for DCS and those videos make it a no brainer for me.

Im sorry but this dont fly with me, would you work for peanuts or are you a monkey or elephant? the fact of the matter is quality costs in whatever walk of life. You can not expect DCS quality at said other sims prices. So long and short of it is are you prepared to enjoy a McD's (though lets be honest Ronald would probs make a better FM than JW) or pay a little bit more and enjoy a nice T-Bone steak

A lot of people reached out to me and said they were having trouble finding easy to find ballast weight so I added that listing. I still prefer to sell it bracket only as I don’t like passing on unnecessary cost to people. A 2” stack of 2” wide washers will do the same as weights I’m including and can be picked up locally. For those that want a damper solution, I wonder if I can make a face plate cover similar to my counterweight bracket with a hole for a damper mount

Well honestly, to each their own but, voiceovers for Petrovich being exciting and F-100D being not just doesn't compute for me personally. And I'm a huge fan of Hind.

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?

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.

I was surprised to find out that the Hun was used by a few other countries. I am sure that DCS virtual pilots from those countries will be happy to have a jet from that era representing them. Denmark France Taiwan Turkey

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

True, but the F-8E had more kills, flew a duckton more missions (including with the Marines from Da Nang) and has the quirkier handling around the boat. The BLC and additional drag by that 40° flap setting helped curing the Crusader's speed-instability in the pattern. It also took the fun out of landing on an Essex class boat with a speed-unstable airplane at 140kts at night... What they didn't fix with the J was the throttle-lag of the J57 engine, which is going to get a lot of people the first time they'll try to trap. And the consecutive 50 times...

This is for the Super Carrier and the other is for the free carriers. The frequencies are set up by the mission creator, you can press 'K' I believe and it will show the frequencies. Best to use a ACLS training mission or, if you're feeling adventurous, make your own ( included in first video) and you gain even more understanding of what's going on. Pause the videos after each step and write down the proceedure, it helps. I included the 3rd video because it's got a good visual representation, you can pause the video, take a screenshot of the visual aids and then keep them for your reference. You're basically trying to fly down to a point in space where the ACLS can lock on and remote guide your jet from there. Don't forget what I posted above "When you hear "ACLS lock-on" over the radio and see 'mode 1' on your ACL page then hit CPL on the autopilot to switch, then hit ATC and make sure it engages i.e. not flashing. From there, its hands off and the ACLS will land the jet, works for me every time." It all happens quicker than you'd think so you have to practice the procedure a little. If you still aren't getting it after this, PM me and I'll schedule to get with you and do some practice.

Наоборот, классно, если его сделают - это ж новая жизнь для модуля МиГ-19. Сейчас он немножко "не пришей туда рукав" - против обычного Сейбра он, кхм, избыточен, против F-5 ему тяжело. А тут, по идее, будет более подходящий оппонент.

I have zero issues with deserts and welcome more. I don't think DCS's map list could even be considered complete without an Iraq map that also features Iran and Saudia Arabia. It's not even like all deserts are the same, so I don't get why this complaint comes up.