Leaderboard

As we are waiting for the release date reveal in an official DCS newsletter, we have prepared a second trailer for our upcoming MB.339 for DCS. We hope you will like it!

MB-339 - FAQ - FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS STATE OF FAQ: September 2022. Version 1.1 Q: What is the current state of the MB-339 Module? A: Currently (as of September 2022) the MB-339 is ready for release. The module includes the simulation of the MB-339A and MB-339PAN variants, full systems functionality for both pilots, Multicrew capability, one campaign, and Singleplayer, Quickstart, several training missions, and a manual. The only missing functionality is the Flight Director which will be included post release. Q: Is it Early Access or Full Release state? A: We cannot define the project Early Access we have completed almost all aircraft system. It could be defined a beta release focused to its completion within some months post release. Q: What will the release version of the MB-339 include? A: The release version of the MB-339 will include the MB-339A and MB-339PAN versions which received the MLU update. This version is the one currently used by the Italian Air Force for basic jet training. The module also includes only the external 3D model of the early MB-339A (i.e. the one who fought during the Falklands-Malvinas War). Q: Is IndiaFoxtEcho considering making more evolute MB-339 versions, like MB-339CD or MB-339CB? A: Not at this moment. Although these versions look very similar to the MB-339A, they are different in terms of system integrations, performances and 3D models (both for external and cockpit) so they cannot be considered as update of this module, but never say never... Q: Where can I find the manual for the MB-339? A: Please follow this link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YT_g9xSDHcAVRYIkeBKC_WN7wy8RG0tI/view?usp=sharing Q: Does the MB-339 Module support VR? A: Yes! Eagle Dynamics made a very good job with VR support for DCS World, so the MB-339 is full compatible with VR. Q: What is the Multicrew? A: The Multicrew feature is the possibility to fly the MB-339 online in Multiplayer or CoOp together with a friend (or stranger of course) as pilot or instructor. The MB-339 is a two-seat jet aircraft and is best experienced together with friends while doing procedural training flights or light attack missions. Q: My friend wants to join to my aircraft, does he/she need to own the MB-339 module too? A: Yes. The instructor station is a reproduction of the pilot/student station, this means that majority of instruments and controls are present in both cockpits. Doing a Multicrew aircraft is a very challenging task as you need to double everything in terms of code and 3D model which is not far different for making two separated modules. We hope you will enjoy all our efforts and passion spent for creating this module. We thank you for your continuous support, this motivates us to do our best on this and future projects. Q: Will you add the RNZAF skin in your module? A: Our policy is “no fictional liveries in the official package”, but we can consider to add it if the community will make a high quality livery. Q: Will the MB-339 include pilot bodies for normal and VR use? A: Yes. However we are aware that at day 1 the pilots 3D models are not high detailed, but we have planned to add a better version in future. Q: Does the MB-339 supports DCS Simple Radio in Multiplayer? A: Yes! DCS Simple Radio Standalone support will be available at day 1. Q: Is there a Chuck's Guide for the MB-339? A: Not at the moment unfortunately. Q: Is there a paint kit for skin creators? A: Yes, you can find the paintkit here. Q: What is the price for the MB-339 Module and are you offering sales? A: The MB-339 will be in line with the other modules of the same category. Q: Will the MB-339 Module be available on Steam? A: Yes. Q: If I own a steam version, and my friend owns a standalone version - can we still fly together? A: Yes. Both standalone and steam version are online compatible with each other and completely identical. Thank you all for putting your trust in IndiaFoxtEcho Visual Simulation. We sincerely hope you enjoy our products and we thank you for your kind and continued support! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Indiafoxtecho-594476197232512/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/indiafoxtecho/?hl=it Discord: https://discord.gg/e3a3uEptDm

The development of the DCS AH-64D has never stopped since release in March, and will continue for quite some time. The module is in early access, and every major patch has included bug fixes for the AH-64D and some have included additional features. Early access will be a marathon, not a sprint, so patience will be required. New features are also in progress, such as the Image Auto Tracker, among others. The C-130, F-100, and the recently announced A-1 are all being developed by 3rd party teams, not Eagle Dynamics, and therefore have no impact on ED's projects such as the AH-64D. Further, ED has many teams with their own responsibities, so when the F-16 gets new features, this does not mean that the AH-64D is collecting dust. There are many, many parallel lines of effort happening within ED for various modules and the core DCS World software. But there are also many, many 3rd parties developing aircraft, maps and DLC campaigns for DCS as well.

As has been mentioned many times, the dev team is aware of these issues. These include the flight model, the SCAS logic, and the associated SAS Saturate tone. It's not for lack of information or feedback, it's a matter of implementing these things correctly, which is quite complex. I feel a lot of people think these things are vastly more simplified than they are in reality. But they are not simple at all. Believe me when I say that yes, we are aware of it, and yes it is being worked on. Beyond that, I don't know what else I can say regarding this matter. On the topic of the video itself, I want to clarify that pressing the force trim is not the same thing as disabling the FMC channels in the real aircraft. There is a lot of interwoven logic that occurs within the FMC regardless of whether the force trim is being pressed or not. I'm not sure if the author was referring to the real aircraft or not; I did want to clarify that specific point.

A lot of manpower is already into the core as we speak, giving up making modules just isnt realistic though, we not only need to keep bringing you modules created by us, but we have private contracts the require us to be the best of the best as well. So module creation by ED will not go away, but more 3rd Parties is more better.

Hi. While looking for potential fixes to an issue on 4YA's WW2 server I came across this strange phenomenon. When you get too close to enemies they will cease fire and in some cases forget you're there entirely. You can fly formation right in the center of a combat box and the bombers will refuse to fire at you. Not only that at many angles the bombers won't even use their full arsenal to shoot at you. Attached is a video showing the issue, with commentary, and I have attached two tracks and the scenario itself. There is an argument to be made that this is intentional as to prevent fratricide but the extent of this issue seems far far too extreme. If all the LW had to do was sit right in the middle of a formation they'd have absolutely ruined the concept of daylight bombing. Not only that, the degree to which the AI can't hit a stationary target is a bit suspect as well as per the A20 footage. test 1.trk test 2.trk Bomber gunner test.miz

Ex Apache pilot talks about the problematic SAS... "It's not a normal thing to constantly hear the tone and get the SAS saturated message. In fact, in my 6 years of flying the aircraft I don't remember getting the SAS saturated tone more than a handful of times. Hopefully we see ED make a fix to this soon."

Yeah I'm well aware however the video seems to contradict that. Why would they install the wing stations and captive missiles only to train, and then what? They send the jet back to the depot and have them take all that off and put the CFTs back on? and where are the pods, why have do the recess stations have the hardware to accept missiles installed. They went through a bit of intentional work to get the jet in configuration. And there's two of them like that together. It actually is a little difficult to understand. If that was just a test or check flight they would not load up captive missiles or do any of that. If this was a ferry flight where are the pods and drop tanks. The only other instances I've seen them without CFTs is in test settings at the depot I've never ever seen one in a training setting without out CFTs. Certainly not deployed overseas either. But I guess the point is, if they wanted to operate the jet like, they certainly could. I was always under the impression they don't, but I also have eyes. Anywho yeah I'd love to see raz or ED make an F-15C as a follow up to the SE which would largely make this thread irrelevant.

Haha! Actually not. I'm creating the infantry units as a distraction from the more boring QA work. But behind the scenes I've already fixed a lot of stuff found in the current QA run.

Вопрос остается открытым: И к нему добавляется бонус-трек: Как этот фак (актуальность которого под вопросом) поможет англоязычным пользователям? А пользователям, не знающим о существовании форума или не желающим вникать в его структуру? Вы притягиваете аргументы за уши. Вот когда доберемся до "чего-нибудь", значительно замедляющего время загрузки, так и будем думать. Документация - не из этой оперы. С тем же успехом можно попросить юзеров не накидывать много миссий в папку Mission - как бы чего не вышло, вдруг загрузка замедлится на 0,00001 мс.

And here is the squad anti tank guy, armed with the Pskott 86 (AT4).

This was in support of the Swiss trials in November 2008, where GT15 and IPA3 participated. PIRATE was removed in 2010 IIRC, probably when scheduled maintenance was due. When it proves on thing it is that PIRATE is retrofirable to any Typhoon, if required.

Outstanding! Your mod with "the better trees" from Taz and we have in fact like a new map! Thx a lot for your work!

а может им и не нужен DCS, достаточно какой нить тундры? по моему что в мфс, что в хп и в др серьезных платформах, всегда было нужно самому копаться во всем, и уж если человек не может тупо найти документацию, о которой кстати почти в любом обучении упоминается, то вряд ли он вообще сможет осилить сколь либо серьезный модуль.

And some machine gun mowing from the hip, or as we call it in Sweden, mejning med kulspruta. null

Following up with a Ak5 / Granattillsats (M203). Both the rifle and grenade launcher are of course working. null

Hi, thank you for making the Sinai map. I'd like to suggest that you map in high detail a few areas outside the projected square-shaped detailed area: Luxor and its air bases Ras Banas with its air bases and naval base. This would enable mission makers to recreate many IAF long range strike missions from 67 to 73.

I know people get bored waiting for the Kiowa but why make things up when the answer is in the Kiowa FAQ from 3 years ago ?

Only marketing? How about an expanded player base? For people not interested in a study sim, MAC will provide the long absent opportunity to enjoy a serious combat aviation sim with numerous aircraft to fly. It should also improve the overall online player base as well, though possibly not the DCS base itself. My impression is that MAC will have its own dedicated servers.

Yeah, maybe. And I would be totally fine with that, of course. These guys are surely working on tons of stuff behind the scenes and that takes a lot of human resources, I know that. A little heads up would be very much appreciated, though. But because several months have passed now and because we were actually told that ED was about to promptly publish the said white paper which would clarify most of these concerns and questions rightfully raised by part of the more active F-16 community you should not go radio silent on this matter but you should actually deliver or at least inform the said part of the community. Right? Right. Thanks.

Документация в интерфейсе игры - зло. Пользоваться не удобно. Гораздо удобнее открыть PDF на соседнем мониторе или планшете.

hi all we have fixes coming for this in future updates. thank you

Если добавление в интерфейс кнопки замедлит загрузку - к ЕД возникнут определенные вопросы. Ну а вы в любом случае подождете несколько лишних секунд - не переломитесь.

Agree 100% this is a much needed improvement, long overdue and as more modules based on rocket attacks are released the need grow even bigger.

Зачем усложнять человеку жизнь ("если не сможет - сам виноват, пусть пердолит в тундру"), если ее можно упростить? Любой фак минимум наполовину состоит из описания очевидных вещей и траблшутинга. Это нужно далеко не всем. А вот учить модуль приходится каждому без исключения. И заставлять всех перелопачивать фак на форуме вместо добавления заметной ссылки на доки в интерфейсе игры - это усложнение, а не упрощение жизни.

Ну как бы да...? Это же новый пользователь? А вы тоже с полным набором базовых знаний родились? Говорите так как будто пользователи с кулаками денег так и рвутся в мир симуляторов... Бугурт по поводу запрятанности доков поддерживаю. Когда был новым игроком о документации к редактору узнал случайно из сообщения на форуме.

This is a true statement. From my understanding this is a legacy DCS inconsistency from over ten years ago when the only playable fixed-wing module (excluding the Flaming Cliffs aircraft) was the A-10C. In the late 2000's decade when this was initially being developed, SADL was fairly new and intended to be proliferated and utilized across a lot more platforms than just the A-10C, to include ground forces using EPLRS-based wireless networks. However, as things often go, plans and funding changed and SADL was never adopted by the Army. The JTRS (Joint Tactical Radio System) and related EPLRS aspects of the larger, overarching program became defunct and went by the wayside. There were even plans to fully integrate the AH-64D fleet into the EPLRS concept, but this didn't go very far. And honestly I don't know if even that would have allowed the AH-64D to talk to A-10C's over SADL anyway. There are so many aspects to such things, and very few things are compatible out of the box as you stated, because they rarely need to be. This isn't based on any inside knowledge at ED (I've only been working with ED a few months), but I've been playing DCS since 2009 so I would venture to guess that it was originally implemented based on where the SADL program was expected to end up in a few years when fully fielded, which of course didn't end up happening.

My question is - with these older aircraft that are more reliant upon rockets as major direct fire weapons - will the rocket warhead fragmentation/blast effects get looked into? The Mi-24, Mi-8, Su-25, A-1H, IA-58 (not yet announced), Mig-23... a lot of these aircraft did their ground attack with unguided rockets or bombs primarily... I do understand that the modern American jets are profitable enough to justify detailed modelling of their guided weapons and targeting pods - but I can't help feel that all of these aircraft would benefit from some core improvements to rockets - and that the A-1H is definitely one of those that'll need it. Apparently three separate parties working on the Su-22... maybe four even. That said, two seem to be far enough along that they've clearly invested a lot. It'd definitely be nice if the projects were integrated somehow (e.g. a bit of art). I do really want a Su-17 or Su-22 though - so I just hope that one of them completes it. It is interesting how this aircraft (Su-17) seemed completely neglected (to the extent that I didn't expect to see it in less than a decade) and then ended up with duplicated effort.

Where boost? ED, where boost

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

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.

Four-ship formations are two two-ship elements. So 1 & 2 and then 3 & 4 worry about each other first. Then they worry about proper alignment with the other element. So an A/A TACAN link can be set up between the two members of each element. Since the F-16 is equipped with an air-to-air radar the element lead of the rear two-ship can use that to get the proper range on the front two-ship element. NOTE: Though the graphic depicts a two-dimensional layout a real world Box formation has separation in altitude too. This will make it more difficult to visually pick up the rear element (and the F-16 has a tiny front profile making it even harder). Second NOTE: A true Box formation has the second element lead lined up on the first element lead in trail. The picture you're showing is technically an Offset Box formation, which should make it a little easier to maintain visual contact between flight members.

Go ahead and actually read my post before replying. The whole thing please. Because I literally stated this is the first time I've ever seen them in that config. My previous post which you also quoted stated that I don't think raz should give us the option to take them off anyway which is the subject of this thread. Anyways That was a training mission for sure, not a test flight, not static engine run up or check flight. And I've never ever seen them take the CFTs off for training hops. Why would they do that? The video is also from 2022 so maybe things have changed. Which was the subject of my first post you quoted. They certainly wouldn't be training in a config that they aren't going to use. That would be negative training and not representative of rw scenarios. They train like they fight.

Erich Brunotte is talking about a (probably undocumented) life-saving feature of the Dora. When he was pursued in a turning fight, and the opponent was dangerously close to a firing solution, he would brutally pull the stick back. If this happened in a left turn, the Dora would suddenly roll right, and in a right turn the Dora would suddenly roll left. This caused the opponent to overshoot, and he could get himself into a position to shoot. I have tried to reproduce this, but it works only in a right turn. Is that a bug? (just kidding of course)

Good evening, ( Mine english isn't very perfect but, I'm respect for answer on speak in english langage) so firstly, thank you very much it' s ok and I you see the mirage F1 of mission of creator. Secondly, I'm playing DCS since for 14 years old and the first time what this me coming. Thank you very muck again and see you soon, welcome ^^

Why do you care so much? If you can't convince people to agree or believe you after these 10 pages, you never will. I don't care one way or another, but Razbam has said they can't be removed. Give me and A or C. That's what I really want.

L'SF-260 sarebbe senz'altro un prodotto di nicchia, ma se ci sono il CE2 e lo yak-52 e qualcosa hanno venduto, l'SF-260 non potrebbe che vendere di più!

Ну вот, сам не можешь найти. А ведь говоришь, чтобы новички искали тут то, что сами-то сформулировать не могут. Справочная информация должна быть доступна и структурирована.

Yeah, the idea is, to keep the card from switching modes during gameplay, which may (or may not) introduce fluctuations in fps. And I certainly don't want to speak for VR as a special case. But the reality is, with the current drivers, once you are in game, the card is under full load and won't reduce power anyway. It is easy to monitor this with the usual tools. It simply doesn't make ANY difference. But the downside is, instaead of idling between 20-30 Watts on the desktop (values are from my 3080, maybe slightly higher or lower for other cards), it is idling between 80-90 Watts on the desktop. And I don't know about you, but my system certainly spends a lot of time in idle. Do you feel comfortable blowing 60 Watts of energy out for nothing? I certainly don't.

Dead reckoning, Doppler navigation, ADF beacons

Every plane with tricycle gear has the CG fore of the main gear. If you land hard enough a moment will push the nose down. It's all about landing gently, though that doesn't mean that the suspension model might be off on some modules.

In parallel to the F86 SIm Pit build using all original hardware, [MVP] IndianaShane is working to create detailed replica hardware and has spent some time designing an ejection seat that can be constructed out of plywood and MDF. A major advantage in designing replica units is having access to original items so that they can be duplicated in detail. Whilst the replica design below is in an early prototyping stage, it is looking fantastic and will provide a pathway for others who may be seeking to build an F86F Sabre pit for their DCS World flying fun! As mentioned in the posts above, we intend on launching a web-store where interested persons can purchase replica seats, accessories, cockpit items and more.

This is requested, not sure if or when it might happen, thanks.

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

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

DCS: Sinai Development Report The total size of the DCS: Sinai map is 1500 x 1000 km, of which, 700x700 km will be in high-detail. The map includes the entire Sinai Peninsula, eastern Egypt and the Nile Delta, southern Israel including Gaza, western Jordan, and western Saudi Arabia. This area features a wide variety of landscapes like mountains, rivers, desert, agricultural areas, sea and bays that provide a variety of mission and campaign settings. The map is being designed to represent the 2000s and up to the present. It is planned to recreate about 40 airfields, both military and civilian: Wadi al Jandali, Abu Suwayr, Faid Air Base, Nevatim Air Base, Ramon Airbase, and many more. The map also contains many military bases and strategic seaports that allow for interesting strike missions. A large number of military facilities and bases will help realize various historical scenarios based on the Arab-Israeli wars, as well as fictional missions and campaigns. Major cities include Cairo (including Cairo International Airport), Ismailia, Alexandria, Suez, Port Said, and others. About 100 unique objects and architectural monuments will be included. All objects and assets are divided into territories to present greater unique, regional characteristics. The coastline of the Suez Canal, the Gulf of Suez, and the Gulf of Aqaba will be created in detail. The project will consist of three phases, and each phase will include airfields, unique objects, and unique scenes. The first phase will include the entire territory with major cities and 14 air bases in Israel and Egypt. The second phase will add 11 more airfields. The third phase and final phase will add 12-14 more Egyptian military airfields. The OnReTech team is making every effort to ensure that customers will receive the first two phases in early access, which will help to fully reflect the theater of operations of the Arab-Israeli conflicts.