Leaderboard

Later when closer to a release each 3rd party gets a section. for now they have a discord here https://discord.gg/rnuYeuTj9v If you want to give feedback do it with respect, calling people names because they have a different point of view from you isnt acceptable. We are getting new content, its optional, you make the choice as the consumer. Im looking forward to the terrain and wish Checksix all the best.

Absolutely, once I'm done with the first iteration of the AH-64 guide.

В стадии плотного тестирования и это действительно один из приоритетов.

I think you skipped over the key sentence in Bignewy's message: "If you want to give feedback do it with respect...". He's not saying you have to appreciate it or can't say anything if you don't, just don't be one of the people who goes over the top trashing something just because they don't like it.

I love those too, but they are not mentioned in any DCS Newsletter threads. (edit: it's Kola btw.)

What I find rather peculiar lately about maps is not so much the locations but the absolute god awful texture resolutions in the screenshots we get. Maybe not so much the Sinai map, but Falklands, Koala and now this Australian one all have Microsoft Simulator 1998 level of texture resolution. I totally understand that these are WIP, but I don't get why you would tease or preview a map with screenshots that make you think DCS map tech is going back in time. I find it absolutely incredible that in this day and age we are getting this quality. Obviously we have some decent maps in DCS but these last ones seems like a real step back in quality. Before anyone starts debating that it's because in real life these places are barren and have no real features, please don't. As we know from some other sims, barren landscapes can look absolutely sensational at low level even without lots of cities or even trees (and btw, I think trees and forests in DCS need a serious overhaul). Sorry about the rant but I'm just dubious how I'm the only one who is concerned about this?

Список изменений на русском готов. Доделывал уже в выходные, был в отпуске. Изучайте ) https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/ru/news/changelog/openbeta/2.7.17.29140/ Да, русский список выходит позже. Могу сказать, что английский вариант верстается и постоянно модифицируется при сборке вплоть до момента выкладывания обновления на серверы. Поэтому задержка между английской версией и её переводом исключительно объективный фактор; хотя... для небольших списков вполне бывает получается уложиться к позднему вечеру тех же суток. Ну а так, я согласен, что изучение списков позволяет получить много дополнительной информации об игре вообще, отдельном модуле, его содержании, возможностях, степени внимания разработчиков к деталям и особенностям модулей, да много чего... Тем более на родном языке. Да так и есть. Поэтому стараюсь их делать по возможности максимально понятными для вас. Надеюсь это получается. )

Australia, cool! Kola,cool! Sinai, cool! Bring them on! Why bash a team making maps for us to enjoy different experiences around the world. This coming from a casual, I could care less about recreating real-world scenarios, on realistic timelines. For those that like that stuff, great! Everyone likes what they like and there’s nothing wrong with that. Don’t like it, don’t buy it. Pretty simple. I’ll buy it on day one, because I like having the variety of different terrains regardless of where they are, what actual timeframe/ conflict they’re associated with, and whether or not there’s a realistic selection of aircraft for the particular area/ time. I like the a-10, harrier and f-16 the most. I have the 18, f-5, the fc3 planes, a few helis, and couple of warbirds. 99% of the time I use one of my top 3 Personally I have no interest in some of the modules coming out besides the f-15e at the moment. Guess I’m the odd man out that plays DCS for pure enjoyment Vietnam is a map that I would buy to support DCS’ future, but would probably hardly play if its created as dense as its real life counterpart. It’s not going to be fun if all of the enemies are under a thick canopy of trees and shrubs and you cant see where they are to actually destroy them. Also since, currently, a tree leaf will detonate any munitions you launch, that makes dense maps pretty much useless. Marianas takes my 80-100 fps average down to 35-60 (alt dependent) and thats just a few small islands. I don’t think a dense Korea/Vietnam map would even be playable at this point in time unless it was significantly underpopulated Point being, am I excited about Australia or the others? No, I’m 100% indifferent. Will I buy it/them, absolutely! If it adds to the freedom to do what you want, where you want, and help expand DCS as a whole, Its a win for everyone in my book

ED (wie nahezu jeder andere Spieleentwickler) kann es handhaben wie sie wollen, es wird immer daran Kritik geübt werden. Also bin ich zumindest völlig zufrieden damit, wie sie es handhaben. Mir müssen sie nicht dauernd sagen, dass sie wirklich, ehrlich und ohne Scheiß daran arbeiten. Ich weiß, sie tun es. Und gibt es etwas berichtenswertes, werden sie uns davon erzählen. (will niemandem damit zu nahe treten )

Yeah, I am working on that, reviewing all modules issues with FFB

Hi guys, You may download the Mirage F1 template here (copy paste the link in your web browser): www.alasrojas.com/Upload/Mirage_F1_Template.rar

Hi all, it's been a while since I last posted some progress shots of my stand off A10 cockpit. I recently have regained a bit of momentum after the move, in which I nearly had all my stuff confiscated as the customs guys initially thought it was military stuff. Thankfully they accepted that real military hardware isn't made of MDF, acrylic and cheapo chinese electronics! Unfortunately my K40 laser machine blew the power supply, so I have been catching up on lots of little jobs, and also making a crude seat now I am able to have a dedicated racing sim rig. Unlike Hungary, MDF and acrylic are easy to find here, so after having luckily made all the fascias for the left console before the laser blew, I got on with the seat and console parts. At the moment I am just making dumb panels without lighting as most are not critical, but with time I will go back and update them. One thing I did spend some time on were the knobs, and I think they turned out really well considering. I changed the geometry of some and spent time making sure they fit correctly, meaning I have a load of spares. I'm waiting for some ebay bits and bobs so I can fully assemble some of them, bits that can't be sources locally. There are also some BCD thumbwheel units sitting on my father's sideboard that will eventually be brought out by a visitor, as some vendors can't ship here. Until they get here there will be a couple of unsightly holes in the IFF panel! The seat I decided to do as a vague copy of the ACES ll and again, MDF available here made that possible. As I only have a small CNC router it is made in small sections, but it has come out well enough for my purposes. I need to get the canvas for the seat sqab covers, not sure if that will end up being something that someone has to bring out too. There are still a couple of niggling bits that I want to improve along the way, like the Digital Clock and the standby attitude indicator. I also want to find green on black or white on black LCD 8x1 character displays for the CMSC as for some reason the standard LCD black on grey ones really grate! Anyway, this is as much for me to keep up my mojo as it is to show you guys! Hope you like it Les Some more images

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.

While it doesn't directly answer your question, there is a 20 min video on YT that explains the FCS: I personally doesn't expect it to be harder than the F-14. As with all old A/C you will have to trim a lot. The FCS in the F-4 is the predecessor to the FCS in the F-15.

Shipping has begun! First order to leave Total Controls is bound for the UK! Order #1185

Regardless of anyone's personal perference, the current situation is that the only modules that are possible to make in the future are all Cold War era modules. So what you like or dislikes matters very, very little, if there are no suitable modern era modules to make developers will either have to stop making aircraft all together or they can choose new prospective modules from earlier timeframes. Unless you'd prefer to not have any more DCS modules after the upcoming few modern aircraft are done, your preference really doesn't matter, older modules are the only option going forward. Now we've established that Cold War and earlier periods are objectively the era that DCS devs can and will focus on. The purpose of the thread is to discuss which variants or aircraft people want to see. Therefore, your argument does nothing but tries to derail the thread with issues that are not only off topic but beyond anyone's control.

Well, the current trend disagrees with you. As Dragon1-1 said, the minority of modules involve professional customers, you've got what? The Mirage 2000C, A-10Cs and the Eurofighter Typhoon? Something that goes for every single era, what's your point? Again, something you could say about literally every era. And how do you know the population sizes?

How cool would it be? (This is a ADF but I think it is pretty identical to the earlier As)

No. F-16A ADF didn't have any TWS or AMRAAM integration, it was old variant with original APG-66 radar, just slighty modified to be able to guide Sparrow missiles for secondary duty National Air Guard units as budget bomber interceptor. It was heavier than F-16A Block 1, 5, 10 or even 15 and it didn't see any air combat. AMRAAM integration came far later with MLU, but F-16A MLU would be really bad choice - already overweight with all additional stuff, with poorer performance, not as nimble as early blocks, but similar in avionics and weapons to F-16C we already have. And useless in Cold War scenarios. It would be just as F-16 we already have but worse. Something like Block 10 would be useful in DCS, historically relevant fighting real air combat and achieving dozens of air kills against aircrafts which are in DCS over maps which are in DCS. Not some ADF heavy, poor performing, niche Air Guard bomber chaser variant or another late, heavy AMRAAM truck MLU.

Goddammit, it's a Volvo 740 Turbo Intercooler. Have a little faith. It does 150 mph/130 kn which equals to 240 km/h. null

Don't know if it helps, but here is all I found about Koalas and sharks

You think we only look here for feedback? I can tell you we see a lot of feedback good and bad on a daily / hourly basis, I also get hundreds of PM's and DM's here on the forum and discord also various social media accounts we run. Dont worry we know what the feedback is. edit: Just to add, I did not say everyone needs to appreciate a new product, but there is various ways to give feedback good and bad as long as it is within our forum rules all is fine and welcome. thanks

Все же хотелось бы уже подобное увидеть от ED на не кликабельных машинах. Пускай не полную там симуляцию запуска двигателя, но последовательную. Сначала первый, потом второй. Что бы понемногу усложнять имеющиеся самолеты.

Y'all are not asking the real important question: will tge map come with an ozzie assets pack? Roo's, barbies, emu's and sheep missile squads? Oh and of course prescilla the queen of the desert!

@NineLine I understand from a business standpoint. That ship has sailed for ED. But the requirements for getting a license to build a complete map is out of the ballpark for 99.99% of the people here. I don't think it would necessarily be something that needed to be redone from scratch but if that were the case, I would think at least some of the work that was done to the original map could be carried over. From a few different perspectives, opening it up to be modded with some sort of restricted licensing could be very beneficial to ED and the consumers. Maybe where there is a set goal of what to complete like redefining the map area, adding a set amount of new airbases and possibly even bringing it up to date with the new mapping standards. I'm quite certain there are enough modders with the skillset and desire to update the map that a collective volunteer team could be established to take on the task. In addition, there could potentially be numerous individuals on the brink of developing the skillsets required to assist in the modding and allowing them to be part of the modification process on a smaller project might just give them the remaining knowledge and spark the confidence needed to take on a larger on once they are comfortable with what it entails. This could lead to a bigger pool of map creators or at least offer the current pool a bigger group to pull from should they want to expand or lose staffing. I think ED should really consider and would really benefit from a one time opportunity for the community to accomplish this. Get Wags on board with this Nineline!

Let people make what they want. Don't like it? Don't download it. Want something else or something specific that no one else is making? Download the paint kit and get to work.

this would be the ideal map, the F1´s home.... Canarias. You have real training bases and you can use any of the uprisings for campaigns, frente Polisario and Western Sahara. Part Africa, part Spain, win win scenario... I chose the specific area because its also really low on density of population.. only bummer: more dessert LOL....

Thanks for all the help, this seems different than the old mystery bug, seems to have been introduced with the cooling system, but it is reported now, and I will stress how important it is we get it fixed a little faster than the previous one.

Chichowalker is totally right, it's internally fixed in both pitch and yaw channels and it will committed with next ED's update. Please note that the behaviour present in current Open Beta is going to change significantly in the next update. We also have an internal fix for the bug with "extreme speed" at low altitude.

Something new is cooking

You're not really missing anything per se. The AH-64 is a high performance aircraft, so it handles like a fighter plane, but the flight model of the DCS: AH-64D is still Work-In-Progress, to include its overall stability. I know that a lot of you are probably tired of hearing me say that, but it really is the truth. I can assure you the devs have never stopped working on the flight model since even before initial release. The complexities of what they are doing cannot be overstated. I will tell you there is noticeable progress, but nothing quantifiable to share at the moment. But based on the quality of other helos in DCS like the Ka-50 and Mi-24, I'm not worried. We'll get there.

I recommend you slightly reduce your mask's oxygen flow, and things should return to normal

Hey there, I set up this Discord server which you may be interested in. It's an unofficial server where DCS Mirage F1 drivers can talk to one another, teach, and learn. I've put in a few basic resources and links to useful mods that should help new people starting out. Hoping it can be productive for all of us to really get the best out of this module! https://discord.gg/wuNPHQxbv2 See you there, Panny

FYI the earlier variants of the F-16A are distinct enough with their lighter weight to offer a completely different gameplay and character, analog cockpit, short range weapon only, but fantastic maneuverability. Another big plus is that the F-16A could be used on cold war servers. So an earlier variant of the F-16 would actually be a very good idea in this case because of the vast difference in performance and suitability it would offer.

As for a Guess on the % of Users that use VR and who doesn't, if I did know that information, as a tester or anyone with access to it, usage statistics that arent already public information, is a violation of Privacy and likely the NDA, no one is going to risk any of that to ease your mind as to wether you feel VR is an Advantage. It doesn't matter to me, as a Player I don't care if you are VR, TiR, 65 Inch 8K QLED. I dont care if you use a Headset, Face Tracking, IR Tracking, Coolie Hat, Mouse Trackball, NUMPAD View Lock whatever to track targets. The Option and feature is there for everyone to use, whether a user is using it or not is of no consequence. Again, VR vs TiR is no different than $200 GFX Card Vs $1500 GFX Card. AMD vs nVidia, Xbox Controller vs HOTAS, 1 Screen vs 3 Screens, They are all accessories. They all have advantages and disadvantages. Hardware does not determine a person's skill, nor is it an excuse to use for lack there of. Gaming and Simulator experience has always been divided into Financial Classes, Some users spend literally upwards $10,000 on their Rigs, others buy a prebuilt $600 Rig. Where is this "Us" coming from anyway? Per your OP, You want to collect statistics to determine if it's a Advantage/Handicap situation depending on hardware, Now you are stating there's a high risk of dis-honest answers, implying that you would ask someone and they'd give false info to hide an advantage. This is leading away from general statistic gathering to a MP Cheating Dispute discussion, which isn't allowed on the forums. But back to you're argument to have the information: You don't need that information, nor do you have an End User right to it. Developers/ED May need it for research in which case, they have polls. and they also collect usage data from anyone that opts into it. If it's needed for a Bug Report, then a user can upload the files required which include everything ED Needs. Server Admins can screenshot a user's output to see if they are on VR and determine if there is any issues. But you as a End user do not need any information about another user's system, if they don't offer that information, you do not have a right to it. nor a right to demand a developer to integrate such feature. End of Story. NO OTHER AAA TITLE OR SERVICE PUBLICLY ADVERTISES ANOTHER USER'S SYSTEM INFORMATION. They (ie Steam) Publishes Survey results, but the user has to Opt In to those, and they are not always accurate either, as not everyone opts in, and I can change my system settings before sending those. They are also global general stats, and not an Individual's detailed information.

Yes, a claim I noticed you didn't back up. Probably are, and? Okay, but I don't see how slinging non-sequiturs my way really helps you here. Well, I've got some good news for you - no-one in this thread has suggested that the Cold War be the only thing anyone is allowed to work on going forward and I doubt you'd find many people supporting such a move (me being one of them - look at my signature, I own modern modules) - no-one is going to take the modern era away from you. But I don't see how taking the scatterbrained, mile-wide, inch-deep approach is particularly healthy either, where we have modules spanning over 70 years but pick any one decade (or any one conflict) and you'll barely find anything that's properly fleshed out (the most fleshed out era probably being WWII, but even that's got issues). Fine for people who don't care about missions with a more historical perspective, pretty bad for anyone who does. Hmmm, getting a little hint of irony. Ahh, I see so this is a crystal ball talking, I mean we can speculate as much as we like - I'm much more interested in the here and now. Pretty much exactly this. It really is different enough to be its own module - the cockpit alone shares more in common with the Mirage 2000C's cockpit than the current F-16. Compared to ours, an A (be it pretty much any block but the MLU) is significantly different in just about every significant way apart from general shape/layout and visibility. Nah, not for me - our aircraft is just too different in ways that are completely beyond your control. It would be like me telling you to pretend you're in a Rafale with the Hornet - that's a bit more extreme for sure, but similar kind of principle.

The only ones that need to know what hardware players are using is ED/Devs, and that info is collected at their request. Players do not need to be collecting information on other players hardware. There does not need to be a VR/TiR Label next to anyone's name, nor a Intel/AMD/nVidia Label, nor a 1 Screen/3 Screen label, nor a KB/HOTAS label etc. You do not need a icon to see and use as an excuse when you want (ie, I Lost because you are on VR), etc No Other AAA Titles nor MP Services do this for good reason, If you want to know hardware and a user is willing to share it with you, just ask them. Out side of that, the labels are not going to happen, and there's really no point in continuing the discussion. ,

Haha, yeah. You're right. The 182 hk version was specced at 205 km/h. Though I configured this old car to be tuned. Like my own old Volvo Turbo was in the day.

Das hart daran gearbeit wird glaube ich auch, aber so was wie "..liegen gut im Zeitplan... oder "...sind auf Probleme gestossen, die uns um X Monate zurückwerfen..." sind Sätze die schon einen gewissen Überblick verschaffen ohne allzusehr ins Detail zu gehen.

That's a tricky path to go. I've turned my back on many PvP games that have sophisticated anti cheat systems however it seems those are very appealing to the most annoying kind of hackers that seem to say: here I am in spite of your efforts! I understand why ED hasn't gone this road yet.

Hi Chizh, We understand that there is a limit on what you are allowed to implement in DCS depending on local legislation. However, we see something I would describe as unnatural disbalance involving something we should rightfully call a different-era weapons (e.g. try pitting 80s Flanker with F-15E with much later avionics or even Eurofighter), which greatly affects ability to create realistic scenarios. I do witness more blue-vs-blue, which sort of looks shallow for a simulator that aspires to realism? Save for e.g. USA vs Venecuela, or Turkey vs Greece/France, or Egypt - Israel , any others sound totally wrong. While the ongoing debate on the missiles continue, I could not help but try to look at this from one to two levels above, and perhaps try to approach the solution from a different angle. I would like to ask following questions: 1. Does ED as company have a strategy on how to deal with this problem (e.g. often described as NATO-only simulator in forum posts)? 2. Could you please consider completing the missing features of red FC3 aircrafts, such as non-working multiplayer airplane-to-airplane datalink, DL command options, helmet tone, etc? I understand this is in fact effort, but perhaps enough of the missing feature could be pooled together to form a module that would justify paid upgrade? (as a fellow SW developer I understand you can not code for free indefinitely). 3. How about adding the GCI features to the aircraft that had them. E.g. Лазур/Лазур-M for Mig-21/29, or Рубеж/Радуга for Su-27/Mig-31 (I do not dare to call names of more modern systems)? This could likely be a second seat for those aircraft? E.g. you get a pilot and he gets dedicated GCI officer, just like in real life. This can even create scenarios where opposing forces try to take GCI out. 4. How about adding to the combined arms style C4I systems integrating PVO systems with fighters, EW and AWACS? From what I know even the AWACS itself can directly command those assets. Surely the longer range of S-200/S-300 systems can be utilized to negate the missile range advantage of blue, not to mention ECM resistance provided by integration of radars contributing to the radar picture from different locations and bands. Many of these things existed, were in operational use and even exported so documents should not really be a problem (E.g. Poland, Germany). In some cases these countries even extended the original!

Well that post deflated all of a certain someone's 'doomer' replies.

So both, pitch and yaw will be fixed. Also the bug of the too high speed at low altitude

The map is feature complete, I love the map and would love to see it revisited at some point, but just no plans right now, and no idea what could or couldn't be done without starting fresh.

This issue may have been due to a 3rd party mod aircraft, UH60L. removal of it seems to have addressed my issue and im now getting full features on MP again. thanks all for your help

From the ED Twitter Account

Here's a view of the Soviet/Warsaw Pact at the end of the Cold War with a few of the NATO airbases and most Norwegian airfields. The object counts speak for themselves... null

Косяк )). Thanks. Ключевое - Pump! А в логе на английском у РАЗБАМОВ это слово отсутствует. Осел кивающий - как статик. Поэтому и подумал, что реально добавили осла с анимацией... коровы же есть уже, да и тема про "оживление" территорий животными периодически поднимается... В общем, уже исправил. Еще раз спасибо. Это еще раз показывает проблемы которые могут возникать при переводе. И без того, в английском варианте почти постоянно такие импликации встречаются, что приходится связываться с автором текста и выяснять, о чем именно идет речь.. А в случае с Партнёрами, как здесь, можно жать их реакции сутки, а то и несколько дней.

Ok for the sake of argument I just tested that. Hot Start in Cyprus. Helicopter at 100% weight. 25 degrees Celsius. I pick her up, hover a bit, fly a few 100 meters around on the parking lot and put her back down. No problem at all. Track attached. M24_Cyprus_Test.trk

What gets me is why you are even in this thread if you hate reshade so much. You really gotta just laugh at people who just HAVE to make sure everyone else knows your dislike for said thing. Nobody cares.