Leaderboard

Some early development shots of the optional late autumn / snowless winter.

If you don't like announcements, do not read tomorrows newsletter

Razbam F-15E Suite 4+

The first post has been updated with a link to the optional SNOWLESS WINTER / LATE AUTUMN pack. Have fun!

Soon...

RAZBAM F-15E Suite 4+

Razbam MiG-23MLA

Hi everyone. I've decided to start a project about the SEPECAT Jaguar A. I've started gathering data and sources, and I'm starting to launch processes with the French Air Force, Dassault Aviation and the French Air and Space Museum to obtain access to more data and real airframes, for scans and documentation. I choose the A version for three reasons : - French Jaguars were less advanced in terms of avionics and systems, meaning easier to model and code. - I think it would complement perfectly the Mirages modules currently in DCS, representing a big part of the French Air Force between 1980 and 1990 in DCS. - Being French I can have access and understand French sources, which helps a lot. The goal would be to create the mod in a two/three years timeframe. If it is successful, I would like to try obtaining third-party status with ED and launch a company around this project. I am more a coder (I'm an Engineer IRL, having worked on physics modeling and Artificial Intelligence mainly), and I'm looking for 3D/2D artists to join me in this adventure. If any other profile want to help, it will also be appreciated ! If we can become a small team with enough skills to commit fully to this, this would be awesome. You can PM me if you have any question or remark to do, I will gladly answer them. Aigle2

Dear, Aerges! There is something wrong with steadily stall of the compressor section while your nose crossing wake turbulence behind another jet! I have acked real pilots, including one old fighter pilot, and they assured me that it is very unlikely to happen. Please do smth with so exaggerated reaction! It is very hard to fire with guns, close missile launch, perform scissors maneuver and so on. Also very dangerous to be in echelon position on take off by pair. I assume that effect of wake turbulence in DCS itself, exaggerated, but please could you tune some reaction of beautiful Mirage F1 for this side? Thank you a lot!

Thank you for all positive comments! I am glad this version has met your expectations. Cheers!

What's new in V6: Fixed normals that caused dark patches. Especially visible in FLIR. Reduced flickering further. Improved shapes of some trees. Fixed normals. Reduced flicker

Project managers are in the best place to assign the resources to the team and they have been. Work is going well for multithreading and vulkan, when we are ready we will share more news.

Razbam F-15E Suite 4+

Well, this time it could really be two weeks!

That is 5 months ago... Certainly not reassuring for someone to suddenly disappear without a trace, while still advertising/selling a product online that is not fully functional. If it was a planned absence, you'd expect some sort of notification about possible (temporary) lack of customer support. Perhaps I sound a bit harsh, especially when considering we don't know if something serious has happened, but VAICOM is not a freeware mod, it's payware. I started using VAICOM about a year ago and purchased a few products. I know it's not that expensive at all, but if at that time I'd have known that about a year later all support would vanish (and the Apache, my favorite module, wouldn't work with VAICOM) I might not have purchased to begin with. I still hope that maybe somehow ED can get in touch with Hollywood_315 and let us know he's ok. As that for sure is the most important question here.

The copilot's attitude indicator in the DCS huey looks akin to a shrunken down version of the one the pilot gets with altered controls. The style we have is more akin to the ones present in UH-1Ns or other modern hueys. Alternatively, it does match the copilot attitude indicators used in a select few australian hueys. However the rest of the instrument layout does not. When in reality, it's supposed to be a Bendix J-8 OR a Bendix MF-2 Seen clearly here in this gulf war UH-1H (of which ours is styled to be) And here Here's all the technical data showing the UH-1H using the J8

Two weeks for sure [emoji23] Inviato dal mio ASUS_I005D utilizzando Tapatalk

Not a good reason, putting even more pressure on a studio, Look at how well that turned out for 343 Studios. Halo Infinite was delayed for a reason, it wasnt ready, then the public outcry, they rushed it, and after the whoo hooo new halo game feeling wore off, it was a steaming pile of alien guts in a fancy wrapper. They keep rushing patches to try and fix it and they keep announcing features being removed because they cant fix it without a massive re-write, And it ultimately led to several high level people being replaced, and MS is now considering cutting ties with the entire studio. And that's just a recent example, there are plenty of examples of studios rushing software out the door before it's ready due to public outcry of not having it. ED themselves in the past pushed a few modules into Early Access before there were ready, and I highly doubt that mistake would ever happen again. The cost of going back and re-writing something because it was rushed is often more than simply taking time and doing it right the first time.

Автор добавил в мод опциональную осень, малоснежную зиму.

В ДКС любая блоха со стволом считает себя ПВО и лупит в небо, только уворачивайся...

Please consider adding a few airliners for white traffic purposes. More and more new maps are coming out and modelling a realistic scenario would require the use of white traffic around as well as they could be nicely usable for different scenarios (intercept practice on commloss, etc.). They would not have to be highly detailed either, just as much as the Il-76MD which already exist in the game. A few examples which would be nice to have: Airbus A320 Airbus A330 Airbus A340 Airbus A380 Boeing 737 Boeing 747 Boeing 757 Boeing 767 Boeing 777 DC-10/MD-11 Thank you!

It is full fidelity, the "MB-339 for DCS World" is only a style choice for drafting Inviato dal mio ASUS_I005D utilizzando Tapatalk

As soon as a third party feels they are ready for a forum section we will be happy to create one.

It can build sometimes a bit pressure and speed up processes. Even in Software developement. A lot cool stuff is announced but the DCS Plattform still feels and perform like a unfinished Demo.

Wie? Kleine sinnlose Kommentare über Nichtigkeiten posten, bloß um seinen Counter zu puschen? Wer macht denn sowas.....

Big +1! So often I have my head buried in the TADS searching for targets, when suddenly: "Missile!-missile!" George PLT AI should definitely (more or less instantaneously) react to this, instead of me having to wake up, find my key bind to switch back to PLT seat, try to recover the helo (because trim somehow always gets reset) and only then try and start evasive manouvers. I never proposed/wished for this feature myself, because I kinda assume ED is working on this already

For video makers, this is quite an important detail (see the Harrier video above). This bug is also visible when you want to land in formation with a friend. It is one of these small details that get you out of the sim in a blink. "Oh look, the wheel bug. Long time no see."

@PaulSummer, the Ka-50 has two separate navigation systems, the PVI-800 and the ABRIS. The PVI is the calculator-looking keypad on the right panel in front of your autopilot buttons. The LCD moving map display to the left of the PVI is the ABRIS. The PVI-800 is your integrated navigation system in that the autopilot, HSI, and weapon systems can use the points stored in its database for flight or targeting. The ABRIS is sort of like an after-market addition that can receive inputs into the display, but cannot send any outputs to the other aircraft systems, like a computer monitor. The PVI can only store 6 waypoints and 2 airfield points, all on the same flight plan, and only one flight plan can be stored. When you place a route in the mission editor, these points are automatically imported into your PVI in the following ways: - If the first point is a "Takeoff" point, that will be set as "Airfield 1". - The first 6 points that are not "Takeoff" points will be set as waypoints 1-6 in the PVI. - If the final waypoint is set as "Landing", that will be set as "Airfield 2". - If there are any points beyond the 6th non-"Takeoff" point that are not a "Landing" point, those points are not imported into the PVI. The ABRIS can display dozens of waypoints on multiple flight plans, but only one flight plan is automatically created from the route made in the mission editor. In this flight plan, it will mirror the same flight plan that is automatically imported into the PVI-800, but only up to the first 6 waypoints after takeoff. If you have 12 waypoints in the mission editor, the ABRIS will have the entire flight plan entered, but only the first 6 waypoints will be entered into the PVI. If you intend to change any waypoints on your flight plan while in the cockpit, you will need to edit the waypoint in both the PVI and the ABRIS if you want to them to match, but keep in mind the limitations of how many points the PVI can actually store when making a flight plan in the mission editor (or the cockpit). Alternatively, the PVI-800 can also store up to 10 target points as well, so you could put some of your additional points into those locations if you chose. However, these points cannot be added to the PVI's flight plan, nor will the autopilot fly to them in sequence when Route mode is engaged. The autopilot can fly to Target points in Route mode, but they will need to be manually selected as you arrive at each point successive point. I hope this answered your question on what is possible, depending on how you were trying to edit your flight plan.

Or we could just make any of the hundreds of aircraft that ARE feasible to develop fully. There are mods for Star Wars, F-22s and other fanciful topics if people just need to scratch and itch @@

Everything is marketing, as in different products to different audiences. That's why there's multiple brands of every product imaginable, with different flavors and varieties among them even under the same label. I don't get why this whole concept appears to be a hangup for people. It's no different than Halo and Arma being separated. They're both shooters, designed to appeal to different audiences. One is more casual, one is more of a simulator. They are separate games, though. DCS is a more hardcore simulator, MAC will be targeting casual audiences, ie MSFS. They are separate games, with separate audiences. And yes, some people ''crossover'' and fly FC3 aircraft some, too. It doesn't matter, the majority populations tend toward separation. Having MAC and DCS neither will hurt the other, because those are generally separate populations anyway. Remember that whole '''DCS is niche'' thing? This is intended to increase the casual population while still keeping them in the ecosystem/brand ie more chance of filtering over into DCS over time. They don't inherently need to co-exist on the same servers, though, and attempting to integrate them is inevitably going to.be an ass pain, adjusting them to start at similar speeds, adjusting their ''capabilities'' (you can't ''casualise'' 20 different radar modes, you have to cut a lot of them out wholesale). I have seen people go ''Oh it's the same just you can't click the cockpit switches''... No, it's not. It's not that way in FC3 now, it won't be that way in MAC, and it isn't even remotely logical to make it that way for half the planes we have they're too complex with too many systems and you either have to remove stuff or gameify it to make it work. You know what solves this issue? Separating the products! Then you don't have to F with any of this crap and everything operates in the same fashion, on the same footing, and so forth.

I guess after the next update.. maybe

To be fair, and I do agree with most of what you said as it is almost always true. The person who originally posted it (he posted it in multiple forums) was explaining all of them in detail. I just didn't want to DM him and try and give him some sort of unpaid tasks that most people probably wouldn't ever see. lol. Here is the link to the wiki page (that section is looking for detailed input) There are quite a few options that should be changed and I have no idea why Nvidia has them enabled. As an example. Force P2 State... https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Nvidia_Profile_Inspector

I am not an ED AI.

Dear lord, it must have been a massive effort to get this all to work! I could start nitpicking on the automated comms voice to be a tad fast, but I won't because I'm too impressed! For those, like me, not familiar with your work: https://www.youtube.com/user/jagohu/videos Looking forward to that campaign!! I just hope for you, your work will not all be in vein when ED improves their ATC (although given the lack of news on this matter, we all might not live long enough to witness that )

Active, dynamic ATC will be part of the F/A-18 single campaign I'm working on for the PG. It is mainly Enroute/Approach though as DCS has it's own Tower implementation which I can't really override. It includes separation from white traffic, AIP based modelled airway structures, airspace structures(upper/lower sectors, restricted areas), SSR code allocation areas, SIDs, STARs, traffic flows, traffic info, pretty much all ATC-related calls(initial calls,climbs/descends/headings for separation/contact). Declaring an emergency is also an option(along with PAR approaches, formation splits, etc.), and you'll get radar vectors to the nearest active runway, carefully choosing the ones DCS AI is not using in case of parallel runway ops. All comms are based on my own experience. For emergency on the boat though it'll be a bit better and it does already clear out the airspace for you, which might not even be realistic but I'll check with the SMEs before release of course. It's work in progress and if you look at my youtube page you will see a few early development videos, which I uploaded just for demoing some features - they've been bugfixed since and the work is continuing. I can't say a release date yet unfortunately, there's still quite a bit to be done, but this part is ready

I didn't follow this entire discussion, so forgive me if I'm derailing any ongoing discussions, but with MAC, perhaps ED wants to try and create a more or less balanced MP platform? There's multiple prove in this very sub-forum, that some people still think that MP balancing is something that should be provided by ED (instead of the mission creator). I can imagine that, if done a certain way, MAC could fulfill the wishes of this part of the community. For the rest of us, who just like to learn how to operate full fidelity aircraft/helo's, want to fly with and against each other and don't care too much about winning, you have DCS. For those that want a more competitive (arcade) experience, there's going to be MAC.

Thanks. i was just wondering Looking really forward to try the MB-339. Looks like you guys are doing a really good job EDIT: Just had a look into the Q&As. A VR Pilot body from the beginning of EA!!! That‘s awesome!!!!!

I think they're talking about the IRIS-T missile there

I flew the AH-64 yesterday for the first time in a while. The behavior of the Collective SAS is definitely weird. And new. I wasn't even aware that the Collective is SAS augmented in the past.

Other (reply in comment section): None - no more FC3 modules for DCS, please. It's not true that their development is easier (it's like 90% of the FF module) or it's more probable to make them (same restrictions for docs, license and SME apply here).

Well, things are already changing. There is the Rhino which a lot of DCS users are receiving (I am one of those who already have it in their hands). So there is definitely new hardware out there, and also DIY projects Yes spring based joystick are the main audience, but you have also to consider that we are just asking for the basics, like a proper aircraft handling and aerodinamic trim. For non FBW jets, warbirds and helicopters proper force feedback is a big difference. Of course the love Heatblur put into their F14 ffb implementation is welcome, but as said we are not asking strange or exotic effecs and similar stuff, but just to be able to fly properly

So how messed up does this actually make the flight model? Well we have graphs from the research into the slip indicator bug, the most important one being the lateral stability graph. Here is that graph. So we can do a bit of math, if 65% from full left is flat blade pitch for the tail rotor We can calculate that 4.45 inches from full left is flat blade pitch. Looking at the directional control position graph at the bottom there, we can see we are in trim at 4 inches from full left, or 58.8% from full left. Since the tail rotor is at flat pitch when full right in DCS, we can now calculate something very funny. If we consider 4.45inches from full left to be full right, just like it is in DCS. If we also consider we need to trim at 4 inches from full left. To properly trim the DCS huey if all of the forces were prorperly tuned, the pedals would need to be 89.8% from full left. OK but where would that put us on the graph in a real huey? Here, with the nose 29 degrees to the right Absolutely incredible. Now if we consider, the real thing is trimmed 4 inches from full left. What does that put the blade pitch at? Well at 58.8% from full left, our tail rotor blade pitch graph puts the blades at a pitch of about 2 degrees. Meaning the tail rotor is doing VERY LITTLE. This is because at speed the tailfin applies its own anti-torque force alongside the other aerodynamic effects doing similar things to either counter or lessen the required torque.

+ 1 for this. I found that I got quite annoyed trying to learn to AAR. I gave up, went flying with friends, and started working on formations (and then close formations) whilst enroute to or from our AO. It was a far more fun to do this. I also practiced formation flying with the tanker as well. Just fun to see how close I could get, how long I could fly. Then when I finally decided to go back to trying AAR - straight in. I was amazed at the difference it made. (The trick though was not to focus on the basket but to focus flying formation with the tanker). YMMV but I reckon this is worth a shot.

Hi all, been away from DCS for a while. Mostly been flying in MSFS2020. But since I recently got myself a new joystick, I'd thought I try it out in DCS VR too. And that was not a pleasant experience. Not sure what had changed since last time, but I got microstutters no matter what. Motion reprojection didn't seem to work. Did some optimizations, turned off HAGS and ... tried different things. Nothing really helped. Yes, cleaned up and repaired the install... So, then I found this thread--- and followed the instructions exactly like the described in the first post. And it works! No more steamVR. And Motion Reprojection works perferctly too (as perferct as it can, sometimes there a few artifacts, but not much). It is way more fluid than it ever has been! So now, I have opencomposite installed, and I use Open XR Developer tools and Open XR toolkit companion app, and adjust them like I am used to in MSFS2020. So thanks to the thread starter for the tutorial, and to whoever made the OpenComposite solution.

Новый GUI для DCS уже планируется. Он будет на HTML5. Но не в этом и даже не в следующем году. Просто ресурсов не хватает.

We've checked logs and the only one who keep changing names seems to be you (assuming history of nicknames you used on our server). Yes, it is really not hiding you. Here are several recent ones: null We can see that you at least ones impersonated player named "Szmajso" recently. Checking this players all nicknames used on our server gives us this: Meaning he did not impersonate you (at least on our server). Mentioned player "Sock" doesn't give much name changing either: null It is only because your posts in other threads on forums we did not ban you instantly (taking into account several things including seniority and rotorcraft interest). But this silly game has to stop. Use server for its intended purpose only please or we will be forced to ban you.

Хехей,Бредли на 3х км справа ))) Забыл-Привет,командир добавить))

"Yeehaw, back to working on weapons & sensors Pictured: Targeting with the velocity vector" "So for you guys wondering the A7 has a few different targeting options: 1. NORM ATTACK mode - Visual aiming on the HUD via the velocity vector (shown above) or by slewing the aiming cursor and designating. Leads to a CCRP drop. Allows for precise targeting during ingress with only a visual 2. BOC (Bomb on Coordinates) mode - as it sounds; leads to CCRP drop 3. CCIP 4. Radar bombing - similar to norm attack, but targeting with the AG Radar All modes except CCIP can also be used in offset mode. Offset mode is used when the target is obscured or more easily located by reference a nearby landmark; it will aim weapons at a chosen offset from the current target. The large amount of targeting options, when combined with the various release parameters (salvo modes, interval drops etc) gives the pilot a a great arsenal to deal with almost anything on the ground. You have limited guided weapon options though, so being a successful A7 pilot will depend largely on mission planning & pilot skill" - A post from @MikeNolan on our Discord channel.