Leaderboard

My wife had never flown before she met me, and she had a significant fear of flying, didn't particularly like me doing it either. She was forced to fly on a couple short trips to Kyiv, and then the big trans-Atlantic flight when we moved to the US and they didn't go real smoothly (I looked over to see her in tears repeatedly crossing herself during the first takeoff ) Anyway, fast forward a few months and I'm trying unsuccessfully to coax her into a sailplane and she wasn't having it. Some of you may have noticed me struggling with my VR headset lately, and now I've given my wife a couple flying lessons in VR. Being able to learn in the same aircraft used by the Ukrainian Air Force (L-39 obs), in an area strongly resembling the Carpathians where she grew up (the mountains south of Kobuleti) was icing on the cake. She is no longer afraid of flying. Learning about the aircraft a bit, how they fly, how you control them, made a big difference. It's no longer ''unknown and scary''. It was also nice seeing her quietly looking at the mountains getting homesick and remarking how beautiful it is. She said it's not ''almost'' like real, it IS real. My wife is now willing to give the glider a try, and we can also play DCS together a bit now. Thanks to @Barthek for the lovely Caucasus textures she was admiring, @Strikesabre98 for the UAF skin her plane was wearing, and Eagle Dynamics for the simulator she used to experience it all

At the moment, I have written more than 400 pages for the AH-64. The cockpit description, start-up, takeoff, landing, and sensors sections are complete. The weapons section is still being worked on. Once the weapons section is complete, I still have to work on the navigation, autopilot, powerplant, countermeasures, multicrew, and aerodynamics sections, which should prove to be slightly "less complicated". Work on the Mirage F1 guide has not started yet. I'd rather not work on stuff in parallel since I know some users are getting impatient about the AH-64 guide.

Which is kind of ridiculous. News should be posted in the relevant forums here first. Period!

Hello all, just thought I would add my thoughts to the discussion after test-firing all week First of all, in my honest opinion as of right now, the biggest problem with AIM-54 Pk is not the missiles themselves, but rather the AI they're being fired against. The AI seems to react almost too early, knows precisely where the missile is relative to them at all times, and executes nearly perfect evasive maneuvering to counter the incoming missile most of the time. Over the past week of test firing, I've seen some downright ridiculous and inhuman maneuvers from the AI. Obviously this is a problem that affects all missiles in DCS, but has been much more noticeable on the Phoenix (at least for me) being a long-range AAM. Second, while the Phoenix may be slower overall now, 60NM shots against fighters are still very possible (though launching above that range against aware fighters is a bit of a diceroll imo) and 40NM shots at 30,000+ (speed=mach 1) I have found to be quite effective, especially now that the Phoenix bleeds far less speed after going pitbull on a target, allowing for more endgame 'pull'. Third, given my grievances I mentioned earlier with the AI in it's current state, I suspect the AIM-54s could have a higher Pk against targets flown by actual humans, simply due to reaction, choice of maneuver, and lower SA. I have yet to test the Phoenix in multiplayer, but I plan to do some pvp in the coming days and I am extremely curious what results I'll see. One peculiar thing I would like to point out, when I launch an AIM-54C Mk60 at a target 40NM away at mach 1 at ~40,000 feet, the AI will instantly execute a split-s when it goes pitbull and run the the missile out of speed 100% of the time. However, under the exact same conditions, the target will never split-s (though it will perform some other maneuver) against the AIM-54C Mk47 and will hit about 85% of the time. Both Mk60 and Mk47 are close to the same speed and altitude when the AI reacts. Not sure if this is a bug, but I'd be interested to know if anyone else has experienced this? On a final note, the Phoenix may now lack the raw power it had before, but it feels much more refined now (despite still having some remaining polish needed), and with how closely this version mirrors real world data shows the work Heatblur have accomplished with the relatively limited info they have. Well done.

First version of moving infantry, armed with the Ak5. Before you comment, I'm fully aware that the moving animations looks like a bad version of stop-motion animated ED-209, haha. But I got to start somewhere.

As Stated Previously, When there is news to share it will be shared, Simply asking for updates isn't going to do anything.

Lol, are you guys still talking about removable CFTs? It has been what? An year talking about this? The answer is still "NO" I think.

I thought Razbam had already said that they will not include an option to remove the CFT (among other things because that would mean a completely new FM)... Then what is actually still being discussed here?

I’ll take my warning or suspension for this one… Sorry bignewy ED and DCS certainly have plenty of things worthy of criticism. I’m still upset about the Yak being abandoned. But complaining about module announcements is childish and whiny. More developers brings in more money for ED. This lets them focus more on core development. It’s a good thing. Of course you can whine as much as you want. But there’s no real justification to complain until someone takes money for something. That being said I’m excited for recent announcements. Sure they may be years away. Whatever. I think the Skyraider is awesome because it is HUGE. If you’ve never stood next to one it’s hard to understand the scale of this single engine radial. It’s good to know we’ll have some unique planes coming that I never thought we’d get, like the C-130 and F-100. It’s nice the see the move away for boring Gen4Blu4 JDAM slingers.

With all due respect, reactionary comments in the thread are hillarious. Sorry to put it bluntly, but all it ever boils down to is not being able to contain personal hype and manage expectations. 1 - Things take as long as they do, and not less. It is the nature of the beast, and it is good for them to take as long as they do to arrive on our virtual hangars at least mostly properly. We've seen otherwise enough times, and I'm sure great majority of us agree we'd rather stick with this approach. 2 - Not announcing a product early on makes ZERO business sense, especially when it will take years to put it out into the market. It builds interest in the potential buyers, and it also helps avoiding conflicting efforts of multiple vendors (see recent case of Magniute 3 and OctopusG both working on a Su-17/22M4, or the L-39 many years ago) 3 - I do personally LOVE knowing that an aircraft I am very interested in is in development, and love to learn of it as early as possible. Even if I know it is many years ahead of any sort of release. I can start deepening my knowledge of the type, and think of/start working on scearios and/or even lua scripts to use with it when it comes etc. 4 - It does no real harm to anybody if we have to be honest with ourselves. Yes, I know it does get annoying if you let the hype to control the ship, if you know what I mean Hell I have been in that boat, I was screaming "GOOD FOLKS!? SEE THEE, HOW THEY MOCK US! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS I SAY!!" with pitchfork in one hand, torch in the other when waiting for MiG-21 for example and while not as sure of it, I may have done so for a few others too back in the day. But honestly... knowing something is coming WAY in advance, and learning of delays etc later on only has the side effect of disappointment on us, but it doesn't have any sort of malice or real harm behind it. If you've been in DCS for many years, but still haven't learned to adopt the rule of "take an announcement, add a year or two to the estimated release date", honestly it is on you Now, there are outliers like Kiowa and Corsair. But again... c'est la vie... I'm sure devs would want it more than any of us to be able to have it out there and sell it already yesterday, but for one reason or other, they are taking as long as they do. Still, unlike back in 2013-14, it's not like we are lacking for alternatives to keep us entertained until they get here.

Dynamic campaign is and work continues. thanks

I actually don't care at all for any off the new plane announcements anymore, my self i'm losing interest with the core game which is what only ED can fix, being with DCS since the days of Lockon I have seen how it all works with news from ED, I really wish for more on what ED are doing with the core game, for example The AI, its pretty bad on the ground using helicopters against any ground based asset, that's its actually become boring playing helicopter PVE missions and this is using all of the excellent missions I can find on user files that some great mission designers have made, the Apache and the Hind have really shown how bad the ground AI really is, we have announcements that AI animations are being updated, what about the logic. The weather, the new clouds were great but the next update that was promised is taking a long time with no information for a long time from ED, the last I saw was a moving GIF that Nineline had somewhere. Vulcan and multicore, as stated still in early testing, I believe we are 3 years on since that announcement with its being worked on as the std line, I get that ther is nothing to show that we can truly see but at least a report every now and then on how its going would be nice. Combined Arms, nothing happening here at all from a game play point of view that I have heard about for a long time, it could be such an excellent module with some time spent on it. The core game needs an overhaul, my group ran 3 servers over the last 4 year, 600 players registered on our Discord, some time sup to 40-50 a night online over all 3 servers (mission dependent mostly PVE) we are currently down to 2 severs and luckily to pull in 10-15 players on a weekend with a good Foothold mission, with a core 5-6 still playing week nights, we are about to drop to 1 server due to numbers, if our players want PVP we send them off to boost the better PVP servers numbers I'm sure all the above is being worked on and no doubt I will be told all in good time.

XCNuse your say you are a supporter we appreciate that, but your feedback is constantly negative here on the forum and other places. We understand we can not please everyone and we are not trying to but you have given your feedback many times now. If you dont understand why we are giving the third party news early even after I have explained it here in this thread there is nothing else I can say to you that will help.

The ''roots'' are ''the best possible at the time''. For its Era, FC3 was 'high fidelity'. MAC will be a completely separate product providing more or less what you want. DCS is about high fidelity aircraft and always has been. You will notice the distinct absence of production of ANY ''low fidelity'' aircraft since DCS came into existence. This IS its ''root''. The only reason FC3 was ever incorporated at all is because there was a distinct lack of variety at the time, a lack since rectified.

Serious question though; don't we end up in quite literally the exact same place we basically just were? Projects are locked up and key tossed out, and when that case is handed to a developer who gives zero news.... we end up being fed information about future releases. This system is still just as bad as it has always been..... We need to be getting news of IMPENDING RELEASES. Meanwhile, we're sitting here with knowledge of all of these third party developers, and what they're supposedly working on, but... they're free to do as they wish when it comes to communication. My perspective: I'm a supporter of DCS because there are expectations of what is being sold. I'm familiar with those expectations, and like knowing these things.... things other flight simulators have never and likely never will do. It's unfair [to me] that we're informed of products that MIGHT not even release! What's the point of sharing this information? We've got companies like Polychop who have had the Kiowa lock and key for how many years now? And what's the progress to show? We've got companies like Miltech/Leatherneck, who have been working on the F4U Corsair FOR FIVE YEARS!!!!!!!!! We've got companies like Heatblur who have the A6 wrapped up somewhere under covers, that's allowed to be in trailer videos, and was announced 4 years ago. The list can keep going because we know about 20+ ongoing projects including aircraft and scenery now.... Simultaneously, none of these companies are willing to give a status update but MAYBE once a year, if it's even on topic! It's "fun" and "exciting" to hear about these potential products to DCS. But ED.... take a step back. Seriously. What's the point of having the same issue you did 10 years ago, talking about all these products release, and then they never come? You should genuinely be forcing your third parties to be giving quarterly updates (that is LEGITIMATELY not asking for much), and we should be fed that. These recent newsletters are getting out of hand. Some of these are frankly being shared far too soon... Knowing full and well that these third party developers are doing this as side jobs. They cannot be trusted to release; so why should your customers be informed about them? The news up eventual releases is going to give a majority of your newer and younger customerbase whiplash and walk away sooner than you think when they realize that the stuff being shown off, won't be around for years to come. It's a dangerous move when showing this younger customerbase who are generally gamers, not flight sim enthusiasts, "DLC" that may or may not release. It's still equally confusing to th ose of us who have been around for a long time, imagine how people unfamiliar will react? These newsletters have turned into clickbait...

RELEASED! The first post has been updated. Enjoy!

Greetings @everyone today we have a new video showcasing the new cockpit made by @Yatsieand the new EFM made by @Fatspacepanda that was recently pushed to our testers. This update adds more force and moment coefficients in Pitch, Roll and Yaw axis and control surfaces, gathered with VSP Aero. The result is an unstable aircraft at subsonic speeds, meaning the nose pitches up in correlation with angle of attack. A flight control system capable of controlling both angular rates or normal load (depending on flight envelope) has been developed alongside the flight model. A RM12 engine model from Gasturb14 is currently being implemented. Future steps are ironing some issues, adding functionality and tuning the gains for the control system to achieve the correct feeling and responsiveness. That's all for now stay safe and check six

Yes and no. Keep in mind: the announcements are managed. The hype is managed. The dangling of shiny objects in front of the customer's eyes is managed. The whole "Oh my god you really want to buy this!!!" salesmanship is managed. It's all part of a business plan to sell stuff. And that's just fine. But it is unreasonable to play that game with the customer - especially to play it over and over and over - and then in the next breath tell the customer to keep his pants on, show some patience, and quit asking when things will be ready. You can play that game, of course, but it comes off looking... less than great.

That's a clear-cut case of "it depends". Obviously, you first need to enable the aircraft's Situational Awareness Datalink (SADL), which is very inappropriately labeled "JTRS" on the AHCP. Once the jet is up and running and the HMCS is on, that's it. Now, it depends on a bunch of factors. Many AI flights will show up without a problem, including A-10C and F/A-18C (not sure about the F-16C). For player controlled aircraft in Multiplayer, only A-10C (no matter if legacy or A-10C II) will show up, but F/A-18C and F-16C won't. AH-64D use their own kind of datalink and don't show up on the HMCS at all, regardless if they're player-controlled or AI (the AH-64E uses Link 16, but we don't have the Apache Guardian in DCS yet). The problem here is that SADL (used in the A-10) is not compatible with Link 16 (used in Hornet and Viper, IIRC) and needs a gateway, like an AWACS, but DCS doesn't seem to make that distinction, so in some cases aircraft with an incompatible type of datalink still show up in our A-10, in other cases they don't, and I'm not aware of any workarounds. So it's a mix of an actual real world problem together with a DCS-related problem.

I love Silver Dragon's frequent posting of news, but I agree with you here. Facebook is pure trash and I keep getting kicked off Twitter , so they are useless to me. And to many others I would imagine. News should be here.

Where I'm at right now I'd just like to see some of the modules in the works come out, and to see Eagle focus on improving DCS core.

The other day NineLine said multicore is in internal testing at the moment, and ED have stated previously Vulkan will come after Multicore.

ED has stated several times that there will only be full fidelity modules in the future. In any case my vote is none. MAC/(FC4) will come eventually, and will take care of the need, will probably get that too.

Why would the pilot or RIO know the missile's speed during the shoot? They'd need to recall their altitude, airspeed, target alt/airspeed, closure rates, angles, all that. There's so much more to this than someone off the cuff saying "sure it was Mach 5 capable" when even NASA documents showed that the missile wasn't quite hypersonic and they would/did make changes to get it to be hypersonic. They used the Phoenix because they believed it had the potential and there were stocks of them available, not because it already was a 5+ missile. Now if you find the guys from PMTC, VX-4, Pt Mugu, etc. that were actually doing Phoenix testing and could recall shot profiles and they got to see the instrumentation and after action reports, that might hold a bit more water. Because fleet pilots got to shoot missiles sometimes, but that doesn't necessarily mean "test fire" and "testing" for the purposes of gathering data. Just because I went and qualified at the range doesn't mean I can tell you the actual muzzle velocity my M16A2 was laying down, round per round, from a random batch of M855. They only gave us a general number and instructions for how to make and log our adjustments. The guys testing the ammo and developing it at Aberdeen or Dahlgren are the ones to tell you the velocity, BC, chamber pressure averages. The guys shooting them might tell you what their holdovers/DOPE was and how it did in the field.

Captain Bob, I believe that it's you that needs to get his facts straight. The AD/A-1 had dive brakes on the sides as well as one on the belly and as for which ones served in Korea and which ones served in Vietnam, the later model AD's that the Navy put in storage after Korea were picked up by the Air Force and were the same airplane. They just got renamed courtesy of Sec Def R McNamara. Some of the versions had the dive brakes removed because of their changed mission such as ASW or AEW or Night Interdiction. It went from the AD-1 to the AD-7 with many changes in systems and equipment over time. This is from Wikipedia: AD-6 (A-1H) Single-seat attack aircraft with three dive brakes, centerline station stressed for 3,500 lb (1,600 kg) of ordnance, 30 in (760 mm) in diameter, combination 14 in (360 mm) and 30 in (760 mm) bomb ejector and low/high altitude bomb director; 713 built I doubt very seriously if you could distinguish an AD-4 that flew in Korea from an AD-6/A-1H that flew in Vietnam.

Also I think it's a modern H, looking nothing like '52's of the Vietnam era. I believe an AI model should be made for the 52D, with the "Big Belly" configuration, that allowed lots of extra ord on the wing pylons... smooth chin, big shark's fin stabiliser... painted black underneath.... Agreed!!

Look very cool, good game ! The animation is still better than ED's annimation xD

Virtual Voltige Victor

Work in progress on detailing bomb bay and populating with wires and chains

You'd be hard pressed to find a single fact in all of his 4.6k posts. I'm not trying to tell the mods how to do their jobs, but the fact that there have been no consequences for sabotaging countless serious discussions is beyond my comprehension. His delusional ramblings are basically forum poison.

Im a cat and i dis approve of 10nm sparrow shots.................. nullnull nullnull

Many thanks to [MVP] Indianashane from our community who has been spending time designing up our original F86 Sabre cockpit accessories into 3D so that new replica units can be manufactured. His latest work is the Canopy Declutch handle, which is located to the top right hand side of the instrument panel. We will be setting up an online store shortly, where each of these will be listed and you can purchase them - more on this when we get it live.

But said video is not from the future, it's showing what they are doing today and there you can clearly see them training armed without CFTs!

Pecreption it is possible to make FC3 standard of modern stictly classified aircrafts is false. FC3 may have very simplified "generic" avionics, but fligh models, weapons are complex and high fidelity. Making i.e. F-15EX in FC3 standard would be totally pointless since it would have fictional FM made without access to any data, way less realistic than FC3 standard, and totally fictional and extremally simplified avionics considering FC3 limitations, basically like 1980s F-15C FC3. Just radar range x3, engine power +30%, mass +40% or so. Arbitrarly chosen sensors data without acces to any documentation. A little bit of this and a little more of that. How player would suppose to interact with fictional F/A-18E avionics (derived from current F?A-18C i suppose) in non-clickable cockpit with dozens of MFD buttons? By binding literally whole keyboard button in combination with Ctrl, Shift and Alt and how to remember this 1000 combinations? It wouldn't be FC3 standard, but Ace Combat 7 standard. Or amateur-made MOD standard. WT and AC7 are already there for such experience, no need doubling them, wasting resources and highly skilled and educated, experienced coders and flight engineers from ED.

@XCNuse Apparently you have a serious problem with news and announcements. The simple knowledge that something is in the works or even just planned makes you think it's some kind of blood oath. But you're wrong. They don't owe us anything and there's life beside DCS, you know? Please don't project your own feelings onto young and new players. They don't care as much as you'd think about the distant future of the game they have just started playing. Devs already explained their point and keep reminding (to no avail) that modules and core development take years. As we all see the business is going pretty well, don't worry.

First, we have a crisis in Europe, the demand for CAP flyts are high, the F-15Es performe CAP roles over Poland. The F-15C got send back to the US, there are no F-15Cs in Europe anymore. Second, I never thought that I will see SU-27s and Mig-29s shooting HARM missiles. In such times you need to think out of the box too. That video could be a performance flight with removed CFT vs standard F-15Es as I can see both in that video, if the benefit for the US Airforce in case of less drag (less fuel consumption, costs money) better BFM performance etc., it could be that some F.15Es get them removed, why not. The F-15E community is getting more and more into the A2A role in the last couple months.

Противолодочная борьба это отдельный объемный и сложный вид боевых действий. В ближайших планах у нас этого нет. Но в перспективе возможно будет.

I've created a proof of concept for extensions, which should make it fairly simple to add new buttons to the Scratchpad (way simpler than my first take on that topic). More details are available here: https://github.com/rkusa/dcs-scratchpad/pull/35 If you want to try it out, you can download it at: https://github.com/rkusa/dcs-scratchpad/archive/refs/heads/extensions.zip The following screenshot shows some example extensions:

Again and again and again ... Have you read this entire thread? I do not think so... Sometimes when I repair my cars, I disconnect the fuel hose from the tank and put it in a bottle with gasoline. Does it mean that you meet cars such fuel-powered on the streets? How many times can it be the same, the F-15E WILL NOT FLY WITHOUT CFT except for technical reviews, tests, and sometimes airshows. It is basically an integral part of this machine, but it can be disassembled for maintenance, technical reviews etc. Anyway, why am I typing about it again? In a few days or weeks again someone will come back with a photo or a movie of the F-15E without CFT...

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

Go tell your five-year old you're making great big delicious gooey chocolate chip cookies, show him pictures of big plates of them, dozens of cookies all piled up ready to be devoured, and when he's all excited and asks when they'll be ready, answer "Maybe when you're seven or eight. No one knows." Yeah, see what that gets you.

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

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.

Yeah my issue is kind of the same. They're showing off untextured models (Grinnellis Super Sabre), that we shouldn't be expecting for another what.. 3 years at minimum? And we still have ZERO answers on what's going on with the base of DCS... The hype train can only roll for so long when literally not a single timeline is in the eyes of the public. "Normal" gaming companies hype things when they're within a few month's release... at most! Meanwhile what we have here is ... literally no ETA. We still have videos from last year showing off things unreleased to the public, and "no news" on them. And entire portions of maps from videos at the start of the year with no comment on those either. Same with the weather which has had broken aspects for a year and a half now, and still not a PEEP about multithreading. There has to be news on literally any of this stuff.... It's mind blowing that there's nothing to talk about. But they can talk about stuff well over a year out?????????? You're not making any sense ED.

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 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?

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.

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

There you have it, would be just one would you have checked just once!