Leaderboard

DCS: Tornado Introduction DCS: Tornado is the epitome of the multirole aircraft jointly developed by Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom. This two-seater, twin-engine, swing-wing multirole fighter was built in three variants, one of which is the Interdiction/Strike (IDS) variant. Powered by 2 RB-199 MK103 engines, the IDS was developed to meet the then NATO doctrine of low-level attacks against enemy airfields and fixed-positions, in any weather, and at any time of day. AviaStorm's goal is to develop the best simulation of a 1989 German IDS Tornado for DCS. Their team has decades of experience in the simulation & gaming industry, and it boasts secured access to many resources (engineers, pilots, WSO, technicians and museums) that will provide them the necessary information.

I believe all the reveals teased are 3rd Party only. But we have a year end video coming up in a few months.

Some work in progress.

If it’s only for a single person, please do the rest of us a favour and PM him directly

Our IDS will be proper for all scenarios from early-mid 1980s Cold War, 1991 Gulf War, when Italian IDS identical to German variant were depoyed attacking Iraqi targets, up to Allied Force. Up to 1992 the differences between German IDS and British IDS named GR1 was minor. British had additional Laser Range Finder & Marked Target Seeker (LRMTS) under the forward fuselage received by the end of 1986, which slightly increased drag and was used to guide Paveway II laser guided bombs, but the target has to be designated by higher flying subsonic Buccaner with AN/AVQ-23E Pave Spike pod and Tornado had to fly at least at 10,000ft so its use against symmetrical opponent over enemy territory wasn't considered practically possible, making both planes exposed easy targets for enemy air defense and interceptors. GR1 also had additional small fuel tank inside vertical stabiliser and a bit different pylons compared to German and Italian variant. German was using MW-1 bomb dispenser with 4 different loadouts when British used similar JP-233. German and Italian IDS had also installation to fire HARM missiles since 1982 with digital MIL STD 1553B, when British didn't have this ability. German IDS were using Cerberus II/III self protection pod (developed in strict secret in cooperation with Israel which caused a scandal in Germany later on) + Saab BOZ chaff/flare dispenser when British used Sky Shadow + BOZ with similar function. German Marineflieger IDS were additionally integrated with AS.34 Kormoran anti-ship missiles. Only after the Gulf War ended both German/Italian IDS and British GR1 started to be significantly different. But if IIRC British will not allow to model any British aircraft even remotely recent due to their policy.

Secret helicopter!? There can be only one.

Ihr habt es ja wahrscheinlich schon mitbekommen, dennoch auch noch einmal hier für alle, die nicht so in den sozialen Medien präsent sind: Stellt gerne alle eure Fragen unter dem Video.

Hi, we don't make changes for balancing reasons. Changes are only made to make the missile closer to reality. The current phoenix motor performance updated based on new sources, the motor performance and aero notably was not adjusted to match real world shots however despite this the speeds for the phoenix match within a few percent of a NASA simulation which has been posted in this thread a few times. See here: Furthermore there is one known test shot which also gives impact distances and time of flight this allows the error for such a shot to be calculated. This ends up being within 3% for distance and time and 4% for impact velocity. You can see the comparisons to the old patch values here: Hopefully you can see the performance of the AIM-54 is looking pretty close to reality. The remaining item for us are the few guidance issues that remain, we are going to be liaising with ED to get these fixed asap. Hope that clears stuff up. Thanks!

FlyingIron Simulations Introduces the Corsair II A-7E Corsair II A Supercarrier compatible module We welcome FlyingIron Simulations aboard and are excited to announce that the A-7E Corsair II by FlyingIron Simulations is coming to DCS World. FlyingIron is an experienced and very talented Australian developer that has an impressive pedigree of quality flight simulations. The A-7E will add a new carrier-aviation fighter to DCS world that includes impressive ground-attack capabilities, advanced sensors and weapons, and will take advantage of DCS: Supercarrier features.

DCS: C-130J Announcement Although the C-130 first entered service nearly 70 years ago, the airframe has been continually updated, culminating with the delivery of the J model in 1999. Watch the teaser. The ‘J’ is a modernized variant that features a glass cockpit, air-to-ground radar, FMS, and computerized airdrop capabilities designed to reduce crew workload. Exciting additional variants are planned in the near future, including the KC versions. This will offer player to player aerial refueling, another first in DCS.

hi everyone, is there any chance of we getting an V1 launch site that actually fire the V1 rocket?

Here's the real one doing the Mach Loop (pic taken 10 years ago)

Well, be careful with Razbam announcements! They make nice products, and are very dedicated to the hobby... but they've announced a CRAZY number of modules, that it causes many of us to think "oh ya, we'll believe it when we see it". Not because of abiliity, but because of how long it takes to develop ONE module. And seemingly modest manpower to accomplish it. Right now it almost seems like they are staking claim to modules for the next 20 years!! At least it seems that way on the surface, but who knows, they could surprise us! Three helos MBB Bo-105, in partnership with Militec 5 (not sure how much this involves Raz though) South Atlantic map English Electric Lightening Pucara Strike Beagle AI Mirage 3, possibly followed by FF Mirage 3 Sea Harrier Mig 23 Super Tucano And a bunch of others were announced over the last several years. Not necessarily in that order... and not a complete list for what they've said they'd make. But I think they also said they'd slow dev of new stuff until sorting out issues with already released modules (maybe that's done now?) Not trying to discourage anyone, and I wish the Razbam best of luck! I'm just saying that an announcement no longer means it's "inbound in 6 months", it might simply mean "hey, we'd like to make X, here's a few screens to show u that we've started on the model !!"

Insert overexcited-little-girl GIF here. I'm aware large chunks are missing, this was just a test. A lot of details are also absent. When the mod is released, you'll get a fully detailed map, as it already exists in Tacview, CombatFlite and in my webmap. And the best part!

If we want a real "new helicopter" in DCS it should be a CH-46 or CH 47 (Seaknight/Chinook)... Tandem rotor helicopter capable to transport Hummer, towed artillery, Air Defense guns,... I am convinced that this kind of thing could happen quite easily in DCS and thus also bring graphical new features and capacity (vehicule or weapon systems moved via sling transport as it is currently only available for cargo). I'm not even talking about new 3D models like towed artillery or additionnal cargo charges.

Лучшая обучалка - это практика. И чем интереснее и разнообразнее практика тем эффективнее обучение. Толку от все этих статей - если применения нет.

UH-60.

sidewinders feels like 2000lbs, when you fire one and keep the other one very hard to control and turn fight

Actually SD, advertising is what the whole ball of wax is made of. And as you can see from the attached screen shots, ED has done a pretty decent job so far with its ground environment. That is not to say that it doesn't need updates, but DCS certainly doesn't have everyone at 20k feet either. Personally I think you are making it more complicated then it really is in terms of what is possible. I know ED has a lot on its plate and resources are probably spread pretty thin, but you wouldn't have to look too hard to find a good example of what can be done in terms of detailed vehicles being added to a flight sim. But I get your point, the work that still needs to be done would require someone to do it.

I think this is where some of the confusion starts. People often use the word "simulator" when they discuss ground vehicles in CA, but what they are mostly talking about is improvements to ground vehicles. Your right SD, Combined Arms was probably never meant to be a dedicated M1A1 tank simulator. But it shouldn't have to be in order to see improvements in tanks/ships. I personally think CA is an excellent addition to DCS, and it deserves more attention then it gets. I know this may be difficult for ED given the amount of resources it has, but there are other examples of a flight sim that added detailed vehicles. It shouldn't require a complete rewrite just to improve ground/track physics models, or any other aspect of ground vehicles. But in terms of ED's target for DCS, this quote is taken from the DCS World web page: "Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible."

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

DCS: F-100D Super Sabre Introducing the Hun The F-100D is an advanced version of the Super Sabre that features improved avionics, landing flaps, and larger wings and tail fin. The upgraded avionics include the AN/AJB-1B low-altitude bombing system and an AN/APR-25 radar homing and warning system. The F-100D has four 20 mm Pontiac M39A1 cannons, and it has six hardpoints capable of carrying AIM-9 Sidewinders, LAU-3/A unguided rocket pods, and conventional bombs. The Super Sabre fighter bomber flew extensively over Vietnam as the United States Air Force's primary close air support jet. The F-100 was in service for 17 years and flew over 360,000 combat sorties before it was retired in 1971. DCS: F-100D Super Sabre aspires to be the most faithful re-creation of the Hun ever produced for flight simulation. Working with veteran Hun pilots, the Grinnelli team is dedicated to simulating the avionics systems, weapons, performance, and unique flight model in high fidelity.

Hello, Would it be possible to get a keyboard shortcut that would toggle in-cockpit labels for buttons and controls ? I'm thinking of it a bit like the shortcut that toggles the airplanes / ground units labels, but it could be even better to also have a temporary key that, while pressed, would display the labels, and when not, would hide them. Imho, it's not much work, the option already exists in the options page.

Hi @BIGNEWY ! Could this be added to the wishlist, please ? Kind regards, David.

Admiral Kazatanov Update! At the moment the Admiral is receiving a texture and weapon makeover from a fellow DCS Modeler to make her more advanced. Once complete we will run test and release her. Thanks for your patience!

Wasnt that the McDonnell FH Phantom?

As we have mentioned many times work is going well on multithreading, testing is in progress. When we are ready to share more details we will. thanks

Yes, but it doesn't work like that, developers are testing their map thousands of times, they are doing it practically every day through the years. It's not like thay are working for like 2 years, then going online and say: "we are fucked, 10fps". They are fine tuning level of details, texture resolution, terrain mesh, objects, they are very well aware what is current performance. It's all a compromise between visual fidelity and performance. You can make phenomenal quality desert or one tiny island with poor performance and poor quality BosWash megalopolis or Shanghai with high performance.

I was thinking that if the shader recompilation process needs to take some time, it should be useful to show some kind of message about that, so we should know that some regular process is underway and the game is not frozen because of a bug.

The flight control system (analog and digital) has no control what so ever over the speed brakes. That means FLCS BIT can't open/close them. They are controlled manually by the throttle switch. Analog FLCS will drive the control surfaces fast. Digital FLCS was fixed to prevent hard demand from the hydraulic systems so they will move slower during BIT.

I am currently carving a set for WSO - two side joysticks plus a center stick. When I finish, I will praise it Maybe it will be faster than "E" will come out I am afraid that the prices of the old good Suncoms will increase significantly

Ohne jetzt zu tief technische Details abzutauchen; der Tornado hatte eine Vorgabe wie groß die Abweichung der Nav. Position in 60 Min. Flugzeit sein durfte. Aus diesem Grund war es nötig, immer mal wieder die Position zu „vermessen“. Heißt es gab die Möglichkeit vorher festgelegte „Fixpoints“ zu überfliegen. Zum vermessen gab es dann verschiedene Möglichkeiten, u.a. das hier ja bereits mal angeschnittene Radar/Map Overlay. Die dort aufgenommenen Daten werden dann in die Zentralrechenanlage gefüttert, berechnet und ausgegeben. So konnte man die Abweichung sehr gering halten. Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Yes, Kormoran 1 is planned according to developer's Discord.

"Rising Squall" isn't... And funny enough, though I am not really fond of this kind of gameplay, I really enjoyed the couple missions. Lot's of nostalgia and so much 80ies/90ies vibes. But I know what you mean and "Rising Squall" is of course a very special exception. For people new to DCS the included trainings, missions and campaigns are usually the first point of contact after trying a Quickstart "Free flight" mission. Especially with the 14-days trial options and over a dozen modules it is paramount to give newbies something to do AND enjoy, apart from multiplayer, as still a majority isn't doing multiplayer a lot or at all Thus it is important to not "weed" out customers before they even had a chance to get airborne and see a major part of what DCS missions are like. That's the hand holding part, where you can actually start into DCS without multiple years experience in other hardcore flight simulators, or a professional aviation/military background. The other issue is, that the mission designer sets a start time for the mission that influences time of daylight available/reaching the target in twilight, darkness or after dawn etc. that's influenced by the mission start time and take off/time to target. The aircraft starting and setting up CAP, CAS, maybe SEAD, have a TOT defined in the flight plan (waypoints) and this difficult concert (unlike MP where you can simply ask your buddies flying SEAD to wait at the tanker or whatever) the mission designer needs to ensure the player is in the target area in a certain time window. If the player manages startup very quick, he ends up waiting for his T/O time, or if he just starts and ignores this detail, he is early to the party. If he takes longer, he will fall behind the schedule and may arrive on target after dawn and faces overwhelming odds, his CAP is refueling or RTB etc. So many mission ensure the planned outcome and kinda "balance" the environment, by making sure you can take off in time to have the mission work as intended. It's certainly not to ensure players don't do cold starts... The stuff coming with the modules is by design more accessible. The paid campaigns in cooperation with ex-military pilots, that try recreation of real world procedures, realistic scenarios and advertise as sporting most realistic procedures including radio operations, navigation etc. is a different thing. That's where the customer decides "Rising Squall" vs. "Zone 5" based on his preference, same as with the game settings. The important part is, that ED is very clear about their own stance. They want(!) to create realistic and as complete as possible (restrictions, classified stuff, public available material) military flight simulations and not compete with "casual flight games". This isn't driven by customer demands, but what they and the 3rd party developers want and can create. That's why module choices sometimes seem detached from the customer wishlist and despite a constant request for better "balancing" we still have faithfully created aircraft and weapon systems that try to resemble their real world counterparts as best as possible, instead of a class matching system with simplified performance parameters to even the playing field...

(I just wanna preface this first, I'm more acquainted with SRO-2 and SRZO-2, so my knowledge of PAROL is fairly limited, like many other people) For PAROL, aka "PASSWORD", which is installed on the Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, Mi-24P, Su-25T and A, Su-27, Su-33, and MiG-29A and S in game. Su-27, Su-33, and Ka-50 use the same IFF controller 480-I; MiG-29 uses the SRO-1P Product 6201 (also 6201R = SRO-1P for export aircraft) controller; Mi-8 alongside Mi-24 use a controller I don't know the name of yet. Operations of the IFF system are still not fully known, at least to me, BUT, here is what i know for those modes of function. Most of my information comes from a Su-27SK manual, training doc for new beginners learning about PAROL and its function alongside history, and the Soviet/Russian IFF topic on the SecretProjects forums. For the Responder: (Keep in mind there are many controllers for this IFF system, but they all perform the same functions) The Block 480-I installed in the Su-27, apart of 6202 (SRO-2P) Radar Responder, controls the IFF system and how it functions up to the VII radar wave range. There is a separate rotary switch near the main controller in the cockpit that will manually control which wave band is used for the IFF system, this is the rotary switch with I, II, III-1, and III-2 on its panel. These modes of function are: Button with round red cover: СТИРАН → ERASED (Connects electrical circuit that detonates explosive cartridge within the IFF system to ensure secrecy). Switch with red cover: БЕДСТВ → DISASTER/DISTRESS/EMERGENCY (Emits signal within the IFF code to show an emergency with the pilots aircraft when interrogated). Switch: ЗАПАСН(ОЙ) → SPARE: For changing the response codes. and РАБ(ОЧИЙ) → SLAVE/WORKER(Potentially meaning: Manual?) Switch: I and II → This is for switching the control codes, although the control codes are automatically operated by the aircraft, hence why there is a bar in front of this switch, often kept in the I position. For this to change, it has to be manually changed by the groundcrew in aircraft preparation. The I position in use with the SPARE position is used for signals in the "UP" wave range. Theory: The II station may be for wartime use only as that's the only reason I could see it being blocked like that. Something similar was done to SRO-2 Block/Unit 8 controllers which included bar projections within the rotary switch handle that prohibited the code change from two numbers. On my 8A controller, it prevented the change of the code station except for 5 and 6 (which were standard flying operation IFF codes, codes 9-12 on the other hand were for wartime). Rotary Switch: АВТ → AUTH, More than likely means AUTO. THE REMAINING MODES PROVIDE MANUAL CONTROL: КД → KD : This will turn on the KD Light.* ±15 → NO IDEA, I have some info that says KD-KP is used for switching from the current code to the subsequent code so probably this? КП - Командный Пункт → KP - Command Post: This will turn on the KP Light.* Maybe this is used by the leader of a pair of planes? *From my manual, it states that these lights do not present any function but I assume the modes KD and KP perform some function, the lights just indicate that mode is on. The manual also does not explore their meaning nor function sadly. Either way, these modes just describe to other aircraft, or more likely ground-based radars and AWACS, the state of the plane for greater information to be provided to said Units. Information normally given by PAROL to friendly radar units are: Unit, Tail Number, Fuel Left, and Aircraft Reregistration (Make and Model). There is also one more potential meaning behind KD and KP, I did read in another manual (which was for SRO-2M) that the use of the same IFF code is not permitted to go over 30 minutes and must be changed after that amount of time, to ensure secrecy and make the aircraft harder to pinpoint by enemy radar systems. The aircraft technician will also go over this and when to switch the IFF codes during the flight with the pilot before take-off. Fun Fact: There are multiple PAROL's! PAROL-1 is the interrogator (ЗАО-П), PAROL-2 is for aircraft, PAROL-3 is for naval ships, PAROL-4 is for ground-based radar systems, and PAROL-5 is for land forces.

Unless they can fit reliable data to their claims, it's not of much use.

Sad... No one cares about maps from the 2000's... The historical map would be far more cool and relevant say from 67...

In campaigns in a much earlier different product, one that was a first project covering strike fighters (hint hint!!), at first I hated "recon missions", "ugh why go up without ord?!!?"... ... well by the third recon mission I got a change of heart, when I realised just how much excitement there was in trying to keep from being shot down at all costs... high and fast, low and slow, try desperately to outrun or outlast the fuel of that Mig that just won't let you cruise on by!! It got to the point where I'd plan out my mission route much differently than for a strike, trying to out think enemy expectations to give me an edge. Spacing out waypoints so that I don't turn hard right after the mission objective, have to preserve low drag and high energy/speed state to keep them Migs from bouncing me! Those recon missions became my FAVOURITE part of the campaigns. Mig tries to intercept, but yer just a bit too far away for his guns, and your 25 knot advantage will keep him from getting close enough. Or the Mig keeps shooting shells at ya, you have panic attack with all the trace around you... and then you realise he's winchester!!! Or the Mig that you thought was far away, totally safe... and then he's going so much faster that he's on you right now... and then you realise he's run out of fuel! Or worse, YOU have run out of fuel trying to keep from being shot down! I'd love to see something like that in the older cold war DCS modules! Doesn't make too much sense for the current uber-fighters like Apaches and Hornets, considering sat datalinks, AWACS, and so on... but back when photo recon missions were the primary method, this is a great fit, both for the pilot doing the mission, but maybe also for a combined arms campaign with some form of "fog of war" going on!

Ok, I'll take this one.. The answer is: "42"

Нужна wiki-сиcтема, чтобы комьюнити само развивало базу знаний по DCS, желательно, под присмотром менторов, которыми могут выступать "продвинутые" члены комьюнити, отобранные ED

The MiG-21's RSBN uses the radio beacons to correct a dead-reckoning system, which in turn tells you your location (as far as it knows) with regards to the selected beacon. So for example, when you lose line of sight to an RSBN station, the aircraft should still know within reason where it is and how far away you are from it, with drift building over time and then being corrected once signal is regained. Theoretically you could undertake an entire flight with little to no actual RSBN beacon capture and still have a fairly accurate idea of where you are. This system is already implemented in the L-39 as far as I know, but the 21's nav system in DCS is piggybacked off the old FC3 nav system which uses airfields as waypoints and is quite limited. The way it acts as a dollar store TACAN knockoff ingame really belies what navigation capability the jet actually has, around this era it would be very uncommon for a non-export (ie F-5) type to lack some kind of dead-reckoning, be it radio, visual fix, or doppler corrected (for example the Viggen's is a mix of the latter two - not an INS as commonly believed), or a genuine early INS. The auto-approach feature also has some issues at the moment and so is usually more harm than good, and there are also some inaccuracies with how ARK works, though I don't usually use that system as much so I don't remember the specifics. I think it's something like the sector setup is really simplified and the channel buttons don't do what they're supposed to. As for the autopilot - stabilisation mode currently puts an awful damper filter on all control inputs so it makes the jet handle like trash. What it should actually do is act as an always-on attitude hold. The control stick itself has a little play between it and the extension, and there are 8 (4 sets of 2) microswitches that press against the inside cup of the stick extension when the pilot exerts pressure on the stick. These are there to disconnect the autopilot when the stick is moved deliberately, and then reengage it when pressure is released. You're flying along in attitude hold, you move the stick, the jet responds how you would expect it to, you release the stick, the jet now stays where you've pointed it (though the system loses accuracy with extreme pitch or bank angles). It will also roll the wings level if you are within a couple of degrees of the horizon when you release the stick. From the verbal description in the manuals, it's about as close as you're getting to autotrim in that era, though I don't know if it has a means of coping with things like asymmetrical loadouts or not as the way the AP is currently modelled does not even in recovery mode. Currently the aircraft does have an attitude hold modelled, but you have to engage stab mode and then press an additional bind (this does not exist on the real aircraft) to engage it. It then needs to be disconnected manually, it can't be done by stick movement nor regain control after it like the similar systems on Viggen or Mirage 2000.

“As a pilot”…. I find it laughable that you get bent over a game. Start a group and fly your way. Let others do the same. I fly because I enjoy it and NEVER have started a statement with “as a pilot “. Equally as “needy”. That said, anyone that has the gumption to build a server or mission should have the option to create as real or fictitious a scenario as THEY want. This I agree…

DCS: Kola Map Introduction In collaboration with Orbx Simulation Systems, we are excited to announce the development of a new terrain module: the Kola Peninsula. Orbx has over 15 years of experience creating highly detailed scenery and airports for flight simulation platforms. For Russia, the mostly ice-free ports of the Murmansk area, home of the Northern Fleet, are of immense strategic importance. Thus, the narrow land corridor from the Kola Peninsula to central Russia has evolved into dense clusters of military airfields and bases. Similarly, the northern areas of Norway, Sweden, and Finland mirror the military and economic importance of this peninsula, with significant bases for all branches of the respective armed forces and extensive training ranges hosting key exercises for western alliances. The Kola map will cover more than 550,000 square kilometers of land across northern Scandinavia and northwestern Russia, plus large sections of the Norwegian Sea and Barents Sea for naval operations. Detailed airbases, included with the initial release of the Kola Map, will be Bodø, Bardufoss, Evenes, Rovaniemi, Luleå, Vidsel, Monchegorsk, Olenya, Severomorsk-1 and -3, and others. They will be modeled in their contemporary configuration. Beyond airfields, many of the important army and naval bases, test ranges, radar and storage sites will be added, as well as the entire road and railroad network. Civilian POIs will also be represented, including key buildings, bridges, hydro dams, power plants, port facilities, and vertical obstructions. Dramatic fjords and glaciers, with the many islands, creates an interesting coastline. The lake-studded taiga forests and arctic tundra complete the natural beauty of this region. Both Summer and Winter versions of the Kola map are planned. The Orbx team is collaborating with experienced DCS campaign creators Baltic Dragon and Reflected Simulations to create engaging F/A-18C and F-16C campaigns at launch.

Razbam F-15E Suite 4+

1.) Push button 2.) ??? 3.) Home for bratwurst and medals