Leaderboard

We cannot control how or what an individual reads into a teaser video, an announcement story or other sorts of media we do for upcoming modules, the quotes you included surely are not things we say. We generally do have a very good idea of when things will arrive, less so on 3rd Party products, but in general, we have been doing this long enough to have a good idea. What we do not do anymore is release a guesstimate, even a highly educated one. If we were to give you a ballpark figure, that would be passed around user to user and eventually wind up being posted as a promise. There are so many things within and outside of our control on these things until we are very sure its close, we wont say much about delivery timing, even the AH-64 and hiccups along the way just because things can be volatile when the programming is so complex. So at the end of the day, we will share info when we can, when we think its best, you guys are the only ones that can control your emotions, and decide if you are going to hype yourself into another state of mind or not. We are always looking at ways to better announce, and keep the excitement up on new and exciting things. Look, its very interesting to me that we have so many differing opinions around about these things, some would rather not hear anything till release is next week, some what news all the time, as much as they can get even if its the same news everyday, some are just chill and roll with it. None of these people are going to have the same reaction to early announcements, but always one of them at least is going to be disappointed they heard something too soon, or they heard something too late, or they heard something not enough. So while you have no reason to see how balancing that can be tricky, we are always trying to do our best for you guys, for our 3rd Party Partners and for DCS World as a whole. We wont always get it right, but we are doing what we do for the greater good, even if you don't always think so. Sure lots of bad stuff could happen between now and delivery, a 3rd Party could fall apart, a team could hit a slow down, etc etc. Stuff happens, lets just try and enjoy the ride no matter what seat you are in, after all, no matter what happens you have to admit there is some cool stuff happening in DCS, and you guys havent even seen all of it, even after the promised announcements, there is still a ton happening. Don't worry, be happy. Thanks!

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

More infantry coming up... next one is Ksp 90. null

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.

Yes more weather work to come in the future, its something else to look forward to. thank you for being patient, we do appreciate it.

moderated posts, please remember the rules and lets not have any name calling thanks

Spent some time over the weekend doing a basic mapping the DCS F-16 Viper maximum buggable ranges against a fighter-sized target. Intention to open discussion about DCS F-16 FCR data with the community and invite others with similar data to share their own. Topics particularly interesting: look-up penalty, low-altitude penalty, static ranges in large areas of radar testing. Please take a look at the full test here (Google Sheets viewer link): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pZQJnwurX1wkXZ1NUumATFFQFxkqaRzFYnDsC_GCyGg/edit?usp=sharing Includes Conditions, Methodology, Data, and Graph representation of results (this to focus on) DCS_F16_2D_Color_plot_ver2.ggb

you are incorrect, as we have mentioned before more than half of our team are working on the core of DCS, and the announcement of third party projects has no bearing on our work on the core of DCS. thanks

Wouldn't it be better to create a new subforum for every new 3rd party right at the day they officially announce modules? Look at OnReTech subforum which is a good example. No complaint-storms, no extensive discussion here about their Sinai map and the best thing: they achieved that with 2 posts and 5 replies in that subforum.

The snowless version of winter is in the making.

I can appreciate that, but that is why I mentioned "good" communication. What happens on Fartbook can hardly be regarded as good communication when the preponderance of DCS flyers and potential customers, one would think, are on this main DCS forum. And the complaints/concerns are not about announcements, per se, but about how announcements lead to legitimate questions that are often left unanswered at best. As stated, if asked when the Skyraider will be available, for example, I suspect a non answer, possibly in the long term, possibly for years(?) will be the only answer. That is the issue I speak to. Again, if a fancy teaser trailer is put out, with a clear "Check it out! You really want this because it so cool!" message, then I'm not sure the best response as to when it might be available boils down to something along the lines of "Don't know, and wouldn't tell you if we did." That also cannot necessarily be regarded as "good" communication.

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.

I found this video with some great footage of multiple aircraft we have coming to DCS. I would like to see improvements in the shockwave the bombs give off. If there is a future Vietnam map down the road or any other map for that matter, it would be awesome to someday see the effect on the tress like in this video. I know its asking a lot, but I hope when a DCS Vietnam map makes the scene, we can have ordinance effects closer to these. There is a lot of good stuff in this video that could be implemented into DCS when the tech is right.

We have broad shoulders But for sure, if a subsection is done, that team should be willing to communicate there. If they are not we wont create it. Finding that groove in just the right amount of communication with users is not always easy for these teams, and they cant always find someone willing to do it for them.

The 98+/99+ registered airframes are not line Eurofighter (those are 30+ and 31+ registered aircraft), but are assigned to Wehrtechnische Dienststelle für Luftfahrzeuge und Luftfahrtgerät der Bundeswehr (WTD 61) as prototype/test aircraft. As such they also come with equipment Luftwaffe opted not to have installed into its line fighters, like PIRATE. I cannot recall if TrueGrit already indicated if the inital release will or will not include PIRATE.

The work does take a long time, being patient is all we can do. When the team are ready to share more news we will share it. We would love to share more news, but can only give you news when there is something of significance to share.

Correct, A lot of the negativity is from lack of communication, However look at the last 2 weeks, there's complaining about the timing of announcements, and updates being on a Developers FB page and not here, etc. The communication is there.

Начал проходить наконец Raven One и вспомнил еще одну засаду для новичков(пока матерясь пробивался к брифингам) - как блин вообще узнать о наличии документации? Особенно к тому же Су-25Т, которая лежит черт знает где (в моем случае C:\games\DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\aircraft\Su-25T\Doc). "Обычный" человек вообще не полезет в папку с игрой ради интереса смотреть что там есть, на форум тоже далеко не все ходят (да и тут на это еще надо наткнуться).

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.

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.

It's not a "strange opinion", it's my opinion and the opinion of most who served in the US Army and are even remotely familiar with TRADOC. What I said was for your benefit alone, you can keep using bad sources and having SME's come in here to correct you if you want.

never as this does not represent the state of the f-16 block 50 as it was in 2007, which is the year after which ED are modelling the viper in DCS

For the same reason they have invulnerability although they model damage, offer 3 minute repairs that are pure magic, don't fail your plane some 25%-50% of the time when you want to go to on a mission because your plane isn't mission ready (that's about the standard fail rate, and can be easily set in mission editor; wait - are you telling me you set your Hornet's fail rate to some unrealistic value below 50%??? Why would the even model that if people don't use it?), they allow you to ignore ground/tower without consequences (then why did they bother implement it - even if it's as bad as it is today), and most importantly, allow you fly a new hornet immediately after you crashed one: to make the game playable, and more attractive, to greater audience. Oh, and in my entire life I have *never* started a (civilian) aircraft without a checklist in hand. A vendor-provided, EASA/BAZL-approved list, mind you, not DIY. I want to live.

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...

Yes* NTTR has Death Valley which is below sea level and there were a few bugs that had to be fixed for negative altitude. What is unknown is whether or not it is possible to cut into the infinite plain that is the sea. With NTTR they could have just lowered it since there is no accessible sea on the map anyway.

I am wondering the logic behind different modules exhibiting radically different structural failure characteristics. The most obvious example is the F-5E compared to the Mirage F1CE. The two aircraft have incredibly similar published structural limitations, yet one is very easy to rip both wings off and the other behaves completely differently. I know opinions vary on which is more realistic. I would argue the Mirage is a lot closer to reality. However, my concern is the inconsistency in module development. Life might be a box of chocolates but structural limitations modeling should not be. Structural failure behaviors should be similar for all aircraft absent some very obvious public data demonstrating otherwise.

For those who want to shoot with the M134 miniguns Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miUdl7YcWJU OvGME File Pilot and Copilot UH-60L Miniguns UH-60L - functional Add 2 entries : \keyboard\default.lua : - M134 Fire - Master Arm ON/OFF \joystick\default.lua : - M134 Fire - Master Arm ON/OFF There is no physical switch in the cockpit, you will need to use the keyboard for 'Master Arm' or bind a Hotas button. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lyD660l0oURV268Xz2mmAttYyEwotTzF/view?usp=sharing https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3321772/ Incompatible (without knowing why for the moment) with the Bronco 1.00 mod Be careful, weight has been added to the guns, this changes takeoffs and inertia during flight... TODO : -Gunsight ... if you have any ideas ... -Limit shots according to installed Miniguns if you have any ideas ...

I have submitted multiple requests. Apologies for the delay, I'm not sure why this keeps getting missed in the shuffle.

As for this topic, some data has been collected in the bug report here:

" 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" lol mate i woold not give that a second thought what youve done so far is beyond outstanding the gait of the infanteer i think will be the last thing on everyones mind when they unpack this gift lol

For example, a tacan based on 1 #1: 1X #2:64X #3:64Y #4:1Y that way, if #3 needs ranging to #1 you can just switch band from Y to X without changing the number

Thanks mate You know, generally speaking, I understand the rants, but I don't justify them. As you said, it's usually a case of not understand what happens. In this regard, I managed to fly a couple of hours on Blueflag last weekend to test the new 54 with old firing parameters. I'm putting together a short video covering some stuff such as what I look for before shooting, what to look on the DDD. For example, I lost guidance for ZDF, and I knew it was about to happen, and I knew what was going on, but perhaps a new player can be confused and blame the DCS / F-14 rather than himself. And that being said, Draft V is out now. More information here: https://flyandwire.com/2022/09/12/virtual-backseaters-vol-i-public-draft-v/ Some of the additions include: Air-to-ground; Timeline; Air intercepts; General updates; Plus other topics I already covered on the website, such as: INS “Must know” issue and fix when operating from a carrier; AIM-54 v2 first look; Simplified stern conversion, to conclude the more immediate approach to timelines and intercepts; Feedback is always welcome!

So I found out it’s something to do with the dcs export scripts that’s installed to use the stream deck. I removed that from my scripts folder and it works fine now. Not sure what in there is causing it but at least I know what it is now.

More silence. My hopes are still tempered but I must post. Last time I put the sad man the fighter podcast interview happened. Let's see what happens this time.

Wunderbar!

Was thinking the same!

Adjusted the mount points and other metalic parts so that they don't appear to be painted black.

I want to change the default mouse-click direction of a couple of rotaries in the AJS-37. Normally left-click turns a rotary counter-clockwise. There's a couple in the Viggen that go the other way. Drives me nuts. I understand Quaggles is not the system to solve this as it creates new custom binds. However now that I use PointCtrl custom binds don't help. Does anyone know if it's at all possible to change the core behaviour of controls?

Step one no more stalinium trees

Io vorrei anche il SF-260

Virtual Voltige Victor

I don't think anyone argued that they do not fly without CFT on a daily basis... What people said (and what you seem to struggle to understand) is, that on very rare occasians they do fly actual training sorties without CFTs, as shown in the video above, and would do so IRL if the situation calls for it (air defense). Well, I can't speak for others, but I'm discussing CFT use (or rather non-use of them) for real world operations as I'm aware that RAZBAM will not include the option to remove them and that's perfectly fine with me

again you have given your feedback, we have explained why we are announcing third parties earlier, these projects take time and always will. That is not going to change, repeating it wont make your point happen.

More than half of our team are working on the core of DCS the fact is it takes time, we will share news on our work as they are closer to completion, as we have with the AI BFM news this week and the supercarrier. Third party work has no bearing on our own work.

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

@everyone Thank you for your interest. In the near future we will make a FAQ with answers to all your questions.

When you start down that road as a server admin, all you are likely to achieve is making your player population smaller (if that's your goal, go right ahead), because few people enjoy being told how they should play their game on your server. When a server admin tries to micro-manage unimportant stuff like this, I usually take it as a bad sign (they'd probably also try to impose their will on you for other stuff). If you don't want people to use Auto-Start, post a message of the day along those lines: "Here we cherish realism, and think auto-starters are wussies". Let people decide what they want, and if they feel comfortable on your server. People come to your server to have fun. Why would I, the server owner give a rat's ass about how people start their models? I have better things to do. Well, at least those are the rules on my server. Heck, I even provide hot-start on most multiplayer missions (because sitting through multiple INS aligns when you only have 1-2 hours to spend is too much for many players with family). Each to their own, I guess.