Leaderboard

In the past we generally waited until a 3rd party module was quite far along in development; however, this has resulted in duplicated efforts and inefficiencies. Instead, once a 3rd party module has a completed license agreement, we will now announce it to allow the 3rd party to “plant a flag” and avoid duplicated efforts. Once a 3rd party project is roughly six months away from release based on an internal evaluation, more news and updates will be made available. Because we have several 3rd party projects in development, and the change in announcement policy, we have had a flurry of announcement activity. We wish Crosstail studios all the best with their project.

I would hope that the DCS community at large has a much greater maturity level and understanding than a 5 year old. I get it's just an analogy, but the premise of that statement to prove a point is flawed. Nobody here should have the maturity of a 5 year old, nor is making a complex simulation of any aircraft for a consumer level video game something that can be completed in one afternoon (obviously).

I would prefer to see all DCS aircraft brought to the same standard (no state change = no launch warning, or lock to be considered the same as a launch warning as is apparently US practice for the S-200's FCR) rather than a module which does things correctly be gamified to give warnings when it shouldn't, to be quite blunt.

wait until you are nearly 50 then you can start to worry. I wish I was 37 again, try to stay healthy and think positive thoughts, you will be fine.

Alas, while you might not see that as unreasonable, there are WAYYYYY too many on here and other places online that would take that as a hard date an have the pitchforks and torches out by Dec 15 2023 (and by Dec 31 be in full meltdown). Sad, but has been proven many times already.

Not to rain on your parade mate, but ain't that 'just' Marianas we see in that video? On the other hand, by now we all know Vietnam announcement is coming sooner rather than later. My guess is: Next week: announcement of the AH-1# The week after: Vietnam map (A wild guess based on my personal preferences )

Zoom climbs, both altimeters reach their max position way too soon

Free map missions are now available: Bronco OV-10A QuickStart Missions for Free Maps

RELEASED! The first post has been updated. Enjoy!

Hello everyone! Since we started making our slew upgrade, one thing that has come up several times is the limited axis update rate for the slew axis. It doesn’t update as quickly as the other throttle axes, which has meant that even after upgrading the physical slew the axis still doesn’t work as well as it could. This was a limitation inside the throttle firmware, so couldn’t be changed by the slew upgrade directly. Other the last few months I have been working on reverse engineering the Warthog throttle firmware, so I could modify it to increase the slew axis speed. I am pleased to announce our first custom Warthog throttle firmware version, which removes this limitation and runs the slew axis at full speed! Delta_Sim_Fast_Slew_v100.tmf is released free of charge, and is compatible with all our slew upgrades, including the force sensor. Please find the firmware file and install instructions attached for download. You will need the Thrustmaster firmware update tool installed to do the update. This comes with the Thrustmaster Warthog driver package, so you probably have it installed already, or it can be downloaded from the Thrustmaster website. This has been a lot of work, so I hope it will be useful to someone Delta_Sim_Fast_Slew_v100.zip

1.) That is false information. "Because of the design of the optical system, the AIM-9B was strictly a tail aspect weapon, as it was blind to anything cooler than a tailpipe. The modest 11 deg/sec seeker tracking rate limited the weapon to non-maneuvering targets. All seeker electronics were built from vacuum tubes. A hot gas generator provided actuator power for the nose canards, and was limited to a 20 sec burn duration before exhaustion. Unlike other missiles of the day, the Sidewinder did not employ active roll stabilisation (via gyros and differential control input), instead employing rollerons, ie slipstream spun metal discs embedded in the trailing edge of the wingtips, which acted as four tiny gyros stabilising the missile mechanically. The engineer who thought of that certainly earned his paycheck." - Source (the author of this page has published multiple peer-reviewed journals in the subject area of air defense) Infrared guided missiles reached IOC in 1956, the first integrated circuits (ICs) were invented in 1960, and there were no IC microprocessors available until 1971. The designers of this microprocessor (Hoff, Faggin and Shima) were 12, 8 and 6 years old when the first IR guided missiles were tested, so I am pretty sure they weren't secretly building microprocessors for the military back then. 2.) Here is a documentary video made by the Technical Information Division, NAVAIR Weapons Division at China Lake mentioning that the Sidewinder could be locked onto ground targets - the original question of this thread - I have linked the time, but in case it doesn't work, it's at 35:20. 3.) This is how infrared missile guidance actually works, and it does not require integrated circuits, solid state electronics, microprocessors or software. All it needs is a sensor, a gyro, a phase detector, a couple amplifiers, servos and some rather obvious supporting parts like a power source. This description is from the original document describing the AIM-9B missile. This was originally a classified document (at the confidential sensitivity level), but it had an automatic declassification notice for 1978 on it, and the particular document that I copied this out of is also explicitly marked as having been declassified, so I think there should be no problems with posting it now. This document is from 1966.

please read my earlier post All of these new projects are 3rd party efforts, and it will be up to the 3rd parties to provide project updates/status. thanks

He'll definitely behave up to the point I tell him not today.

Can someone explain to me, in short words the significance and usability of air boss and briefing room in Supercarrier module for a single player experience?

This is a Forum .. if you don’t want other users involved then use a private message instead.

I have no idea why you seem to be offended. Just trying to help while you wait on Chuck’s guide suggesting a good manual available atm.

agree, I think we should step away from the game-ified RWR behavior and start making steps in the direction of realism. F1 has a good place to start because as is it doesnt give launch warnings, it would be a shame if they added it just to fit the game-y side of DCS. even RAZBAM has expressed interest in making the 530D of the 2000 not give launch warnings (or give launch warnings on lock, not on fire) because the missile is a LOBL missile and the hostile's RWR would have no way of knowing the missile is in the air because the "launch" signals the CWI emit are already emitting before the missile is launched. S-200 (Sa-5) is another good example you mentioned and im sure there are others I dont even think of.

I'm very grateful to know what's being developed at DCS, even if it takes a while to release it's good to know what we expect in the future of DCS. Thanks ED for the announcements. I hope you don't fail to let us know because of some people who don't know how to wait and don't understand the complexity of developing a module. I wish DCS World success.

I changed ALL textures to dds format and deleted the original png format hoping the model would load faster but it makes no difference. If you look in the preview window in the ME there is a very noticeable time lag when you change from one livery to another. Its only happening with the Bronco, no other aircraft are affected. Is anyone else seeing this ?

Earlier this week, I was challenged to find a way to allow the F22 to drop bombs. I thought of something last night and started working on it this evening. This is the result: Since we're limited to the F15C avionics there is no way to actually program or target the bombs. They are purely ballistic/free-fall, but they do work. There is one missile used on the F15C that's not used on the F22A. The AIM-7 Sparrow. I created a new weapon that fools the avionics into thinking you have M2F (2 x AIM-7F Missiles). You select it the same way you cycle from 9X to AMRAMM's. The new weapon used all of the parameters I could match up to the GBU-32. Weight, drag, diameter, warhead. So, while they show up under AA MISSILES, and they show on the HUD as M2F, they use the GBU-32 model and they fall like bombs. You can even release one going straight up. It will slow down and then pitch over and fall. They detonate on impact with the same warhead that the GBU-32 uses. I modified the F22.lua so that the GBU's can be added to the innermost pylon's stations 5/7 and that they are mutually exclusive with any missiles mounted on stations 4/8. That is, if you mount the GBU it will remove the middle missile and if you mount a middle missile, it will remove the GBU. This keeps the load out to the realistic 2x AMRAAM and 2x GUB-32 or 6x AMRAAM. There are no small diameter bombs in DCS that I'm aware of and the F22 can carry 4 on each pylon. The way this works, you could never have more than one weapon on each pylon, so, might as well be the GBU's. Playing around with them, you can do any attack you could make with a dumb bomb, you just don't have any sort of site to use besides your flight path marker. *EDIT* Before anyone asks, I have extra missiles on my personal version that I've tested that are not public. Single Player Version and External Weapons option updated.

Yes. I think it’s better to be honest and if development is at a very early stage then that should be made clear. It seems that most of the 3rd party efforts are part time projects between a few people and completion can take several years. There seems to have been a move towards only announcing projects that are reasonably close to release so that has raised expectations. If this policy has now changed again then the community needs to be aware to manage expectations if nothing else.

Уж лучше так, чем при ясном солнце в 7 утра в упор не видеть тягачи:))

Taz's trees will overwrite Barthek's trees if you enable it, but it doesn't break anything. The trees will just look different. With a mod manager, it's easy to try both and see which you prefer. I still like the Taz trees but that's just me!

while the discussion is legitimate, we return to the same. Putting a product release date or time frame for release has never been valid, since 2012. - Someone remembers that when WW2 was recovered by ED, some release dates were given for the modules, and these could not be met, such as the problems in the flight model and other issues in the P-47 and the lack of info on the Me262 ? - Does anyone remember that there are 3rd parties that have had to delay their launches due to development problems, including Heatblur and their F-14, in addition to now when they initially planned the F-4E in 2022 and they are already starting to comment that it could be delayed for 2023 and that there is no time frame for the A-6E and the Eurofighter? -Someone remembers the problems that ED had when he couldn't get a module out on time and had to delay it, with the attacks against the studio about "where was my X". And not only that, this year there has been no roadmap, for the same problem. Let's not talk about Vulkan, Multithread, the dynamic campaign and much more. The new 3rd parties, it is advisable to let them work and that they put the updates as they can, (examples, the Flyingiron A-7E or the M3 F4-1D), not to put strict limits on a development issue that is being seeing that it is impossible to measure because it is not known what problems may arise (and for several years now the problems do not stop appearing, one after another). You have to be patient and calm down.

New Supercarrier Airboss station and mission breifing room....

Complaining about Module announcements, And Yet there's complaints that ED doesn't Communicate about items in development.

Wont be a "module" and multi-threading is in early testing. We are not making normal games either, so there is that But I think @BIGNEWYsummed it up above.

I hear ya, but would you agree that modules are being announced that we will not realistically see for at least two-years? As stated, I enjoy the announcements and the hype, I'm just not sure about announcements and hype several years before the product is available. Some of are in our 50's (and more) after all. Our days are numbered. To the issue of duplicate efforts; I would have imagined a series of private conversations between devs and ED so that two-companies were not building the same plane. In any case, I hope you're having a good day.

I suppose that's part of my point; should it be us managing expectations or should it be ED managing a reasonable time frame for announced modules? At this point someone could announce a B2 bomber and a complete map of Asia for Q3 2028. Everyone cheers, the forums light up, and then... what? ED is building hype with these announcements, and I'm all for it. I love my DCS toys. But maybe a balance between our expectations and what they can reasonably deliver within say, two-years?

DCS A-1 Skyrider Screenshots

Miltech-5 Bo-105PAH1A1 Grabbing the periscope WIP https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/787239697277648907/1017782858988933230/3dsmax_RmGOqR9T00.mp4

In DCS - ALL RADARs (Airborne/Ship/Ground) CANNOT BE AFFECTED BY CHAFF AT ALL, there is no ccm_k0 value in Lua code in any radar in game. CHAFF vulnerability factor ccm_k0 only present in missile Lua codes. Because of this, any radar in game will have you "locked" (not literally), except you notch him or fly out of its limits. - THIS IS WRONG! Because of various foil stripes length packed into single chaff, it has an effect on most of the radar frequency ranges and will affect both missiles (active or passive) and radars (search or tracking) - generating tracking errors or a radar break-lock. DOPPLER RADAR: Against Doppler radars, self-protection chaff is most effective when dispensed at or near the beam, relative to the threat radar. Doppler processing radars will continue to track the aircraft unless it also has a relative velocity of zero. This occurs when the aircraft is abeam the radar. Even Doppler radars can have problems with chaff, doppler effect during foil translation can generate inside of the could reflected radar waves with phase shift recognized by Doppler radar as high relative radial speed - which is not filtered out by doppler gate. Considering Chaff cloud as just falling cloud of metallic foils is very inaccurate assumption. SAM RADAR TRACK WHILE SCAN Chaff employed against a track-while-scan (TWS) radar is designed to put multiple targets, with an RCS greater than the aircraft, in the resolution cell of the horizontal and vertical radar beams. Since the tracking loop tracks the largest return, the TWS radar will automatically switch to the chaff. After dispensing chaff, the pilot can maneuver vertically or horizontally to move the aircraft out of the resolution cell. SAM TWS is not the same as airborne TWS, which also use Doppler filter to filter out most of chaff effects. In DCS some late cold war/modern SAM systems able to search while tracking multiple targets. CONICAL SCAN RADAR - very vulnerable to chaffs. Burst chaff dispensing, employed during the final phase of an engagement by air-to-air or surface-to-air weapons, can generate tracking errors or a radar break-lock. The most dominant factor in chaff effectiveness is the radar cross section of the chaff compared to the airplane at the time when airplane and chaff are in the same resolution cell (angular and range). Chaff cloud have largest RCS reflection when viewed from the side of flight direction and smallest from the front and aft. Aircraft lowest RCS reflections are roughly around 45° off the nose or tail of the aircraft. Aspect is important when developing self-protection maneuvering and chaff dispensing tactics against threat radars. Since the typical fighter aircraft RCS varies between 1 and 10 square meters, depending upon frequency and aspect, the RR-170 chaff cartridge should provide a sufficient RCS to mask the aircraft RCS. In DCS some active radar missiles and older SAM systems. MONOPULSE RADAR - also vulnerable to chaffs.Chaff employed against a monopulse radar is designed to put multiple targets in at least two of the tracking beams. This generates errors in the azimuth, elevation, and range tracking circuits. Multiple chaff targets continue to generate azimuth and elevation errors that can eventually generate a break-lock condition, as the radar transfers lock-on to the chaff. Chaff is most effective against monopulse radars when employed on the beam in order to create the maximum angular tracking error. In DCS some active radar missiles and late Cold War SAM systems. (some of above mentioned informations comes from "Electronic Warfare Fundamentals 2000" book, some from "Characteristics and experimental study of radar scattering foil")

WOW what a JOY to see this Video Release. I love this WAR BIRD. THE MAP in the video OMG YES YES YES. My Heart is PUMPED PEOPLE I got SO Many Wishes I can't put them down. I AM SOOOOOOOO HAPPY to see BOATS ON RIVERS. NAM BABY NAM. The “Fish” Cheer / I-Feel-Like-I’m-Fixin’-to-Die Rag Country Joe and the Fish Come on all of you big strong men Uncle Sam needs your help again He's got himself in a terrible jam Way down yonder in Viet Nam Put down your books and pick up a gun We're gonna have a whole lotta fun And it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, next stop is Viet Nam And it's five, six, seven, open up the pearly gates Ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee we're all gonna die

Here's hoping that this will be a beast. From other mods we've seen API available for: Radar FLIR/SHKVAL RWR Multicrew With the above, the iglas, possible MWS, and (I hope), the capabilities to interact with black shark laser channels and data link, we can finally give some more love and expanded capability to the shark with this thing.

Completely agree, cordiality is needed.

Und wieder kommt der Wunsch nach einer Vietnamkarte auf...ED, es wird langsam wirklich Zeit, das Projekt mal anzugehen !

Makes me wonder if the Air Force isn't doing a little shuffling of duties. Originally, the F-15EX was going to replace the F-15C, but you only ever see the EX as two-seaters with strike CFTs. Perhaps the EX is going to replace the E, and the current Es are going to replace the Cs as they age out. As I once mentioned, take those bomb racks off the Mudhen and even the Typhoon starts to look mortal. So much for never ever ever never in 100 million years flown even on a training sortie without CFTs, though.

No one is currently using Phoenix, so report to HB

ED modules have had the same issue in the past, I wouldn't be surprised if others did/do too. In this case at least it's 80km/h or so, not 300, and the 21 has some hard limits that stop you achieving warp speed 9. Needs fixing at any rate, so hopefully that can be done without too much delay. I'd recommend detailing your findings on the M3 bugtracker to make sure it gets seen, as often forum threads don't. e/ APU-60-II was mostly reserved for MiG-23 and occasionally 25, IIRC, as there were never enough in supply to meet demand. Photos of them in use on 21s are relatively uncommon and usually foreign (I've seen them on Finnish and Indian 21s). It's hard to say what limitations there were to prevent loading 8 missiles but it's possible that the reason wasn't just wiring, but perhaps negative impacts on stability particularly at low speeds, as the 21's manual is full of such limitations for pretty much every store except the existing air-to-air missiles and rails prior to R-60 being brought across to the 21. R-60 itself didn't pass state trials until after the bis was in production and so it's unlikely its launch rails would have, either. Early prints of the aircraft manual make no mention of the weapon at all.

A simple "Yes, but I would like something simpler and more immediate than the official ED manual" could be enough.

Considering the amount of push towards Vietnam by the community, an F-13 or PF/PFM is pretty much a no brainer. With that being said, with the Bis being in its current state, the focus should be on actually making a proper rendition of this variant in the first place. The Heatblur F-4 will also just barely fit Vietnam (even the early variant), therefore focusing on a Fulda Gap NATO vs Warsaw Pact matchup with a properly made Bis and the upcoming F-4s is a lot more reasonable in my opinion. I would be very interested in an early F-4 vs F-13 matchup for the Rolling Thunder era but that's unlikely to happen.

Its beyond my knowledge, sorry. There are many contexts for the sounds. And the developer should know about it. For the "Helmet" context we have HEADPHONES_CONTEXT. He should use it for such sounds

I mean around 12k, secure enough to avoid the MANPADS mainly (the other SAMs are supposed to be disabled with the EW flights)

Thnks for this Mod. Given that datacatridges are meant to be able to preplan flight plans it would make total sense to be able to plan using Combatflite. Once a flight plan is done in combatflite, the user would simply export the file from combatflite (like NS430 export file) and then import that file directly into DMPS (i.e DMPS being able to import a .dat file) or just have a 'conversion tool' to convert that NS430 (.dat) file into a .DTC file. Just a suggestion but would greatly enhance the tool

Dear all, I recently had both the luck and opportunity to sit down with @Enigma89 for an interview. I very much enjoyed being his guest, and would like to express my thanks here again! I found his approach very refreshing and interesting, and while I am sure I talked too much as usual, I hope those of you who are interested, enjoy it, too. This time we talk less about day to day development, roadmaps and updates and more about some of the thought process that stands behind - at least some of - the things we do. We also talk a bit about the history of Multiplayer in DCS in general, the role of Cold War and the Cold War Server in it in particular, and how that affects us as developers. Big thanks again to Enigma and the entire Cold War Server and Community.

A-1H is a presale buy for me for sure. I don't need Vietnam to make that an enjoyable module (doesn't mean we can't get it, but what a fun COIN aircraft for fictional scenarios). Best of the new announcements since the Kola map. I think this is fair. So many announcements lately I can't believe all of them (or maybe most of them) are anywhere near ready for OB. I'm in the minority, but I do prefer announcements made closer to when a module is near completion to avoid the overhype.

I'm happy to hear about new stuff, but I admit to finding it a bit annoying when it's more "Look! New toys are coming... in, you know... a couple of years... maybe." I enjoy the previews, I enjoy the hype, I enjoy talking about and hearing about new stuff, I enjoy pre-ordering modules, I enjoy the speculation, but it might be nice if ED had an understanding with the community that something that is being announced will be available in given (reasonable?) time frame. Once we're into "maybe Q4 2024" territory, it's almost at the why-bother stage. By the time we see the MB-339, the Kfir, the C-130, the Eurofighter, the A-7, the Kola map, the Aussie map, the... the... the... I mean, that could be a long, looooong wait.

Wrong. ED should simplify this. Tacca made a simple fix to allow people to adjust the 'NVG' relative to their 'eye' position on an ever changing platform. ED continues to ignore the fact that the NVGs obscure most of their instrument panels. Either ED happily ignores the fundamentals of NVG adjustment in favor of chasing a buck, or Tacca (while he was active here) was a better coder than the sum of ED.

That website is inclusive to all variants, not just the US E model. Its not a different opinion.... There was no SLAM use on the US E as stated above.

The difference is very apparent!