Leaderboard

Some work in progress.

I understand your frustration and I don't mind the sarcasm. But maybe I can put it a bit into perspective, if you allow: The aerodynamics were correct, the motors were wrong. Now both are correct, and by correct I mean as close as we can get it to reality. That is simply something we all have to deal with. Please understand that we're not making modules to be "competitive online", but to portray them accurately. Just how close it is to reality, you can see a couple posts above, when comparing to irl record of flight and impact times of known tests and the data provided by the NASA tests. Peak mach is around 3.45, but you can get it to around 3.8 under optimum conditions. If you do what NASA did during their tests you can also get the mach 4.3 they showed it is capable of, as a proof of concept, however mind you, not under normal employment conditions. Overall it is within a margin of around 3-4%, which I think many are not aware how insanely close that is in missile simulation. As for online, by that logic no other aircraft than the F16, F15 and F18 would have a place online. Why fly an F1? Or a mirage 2000 even or let alone a MiG21 online then? The expectation that sets up for disappointment by some seems to be that the Tomcat should a priori come out on top over everything else. While in any other older jet the challenge it poses is accepted from the get go. But the issue remains, you are flying an older jet that was not really developed to counter an F-15/6/8 amraam slinging threat (by that I do not mean the still wrongfully spread rumor of it and the phoenix only being meant to shoot down bombers, far from that). And there is a challenge involved, naturally. Whether players consider that kind of challenge fun or off-putting is up to each player themselves, and unfortunately not something we can take into account when trying to improve the simulation. The lofting in most long range shots is as it should be. The issues are in shorter to medium range shots, where it can at times overloft. But we compared lower loft, straight and higher loft shots with the missiles as is, and the higher loft will have it arrive with more energy, and also hitting the marks it should - specifically on long range, but also medium range shots. With the wider arc that it travels, ofc you will overtake your own missile eventually. But you would not do that in BVR, you fire and crank and slow down, burning the cans towards your target - and his missiles - is not really an advisable tactic. There are regimes where the Tomcat holds its place even against more modern bluefor jets, but you need to fly it accordingly and make use of its strengths, just like with other older jets. If you see the challenge in that, it - in my humble opinion - adds fun.

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

OverlordBot is an Open Source SimpleRadioStandalone voice enabled AWACS and ATC Bot. * It has been installed on over 80 public and private multiplayer servers * It processes around 100,000 transmissions and about 3 days worth of audio per month * Over 600 players have submitted voice training sets to help the bot recognise them * The Discord has over 1,300 members. Currently OverlordBot implements all its features using internal code. It does not call any ED provided scripting APIs to implement its AWACS and ATC functions (Because there are none that are applicable to these use-cases). However it can also act as a simple voice-to-command proxy to the DCS functions that ED makes available to the Mission Scripting Environment so that those functions can be triggered using voice commands that are transmitted over SRS (Just like in real life, the radio voice channel is the communication method and requests and responses can be heard by everyone tuned in). I would like to give players the ability to call into the new ED ATC, that is currently under development, without needing to use the F10 radio menu, other mouse / keyboard based UI or requiring local mods and also generate the response using a TTS system. Providing a full two-way voice UI will increase immersion and make ATC radio calls more natural for both transmitters and receivers. Therefore this request is is to expose the APIs required so that we can trigger the functions that would otherwise be triggered by clicking on the existing F10 radio menu. For example, if there were an F10 radio command under a specific airfield for `Inbound` then there would be a mission scripting API along the lines of result = atc.callInbound(airfield_id, unit_name, transmit_pilot_voice = false, transmit_atc_voice = false) -- transmit_pilot_voice will determine if the in-game pilot states the request with the pre-recorded audio snippets. -- true means transmit using the pre-recorded audio snippets. Useful for things like Voice Attack where the player is not transmitting over voice comms -- false means there is no audio transmission sent as other players will already have heard the request over SRS and OverlordBot triggered the action -- transmit_atc_voice will determine if the in-game ATC replies with the pre-recordded audio snippests -- true means that the ATC transmits the response in-game -- false means that the ATC does not transmit a response in-game (Will be used by OverlordBot that will speak the response from the result) -- Result table contains structured pertinent information including the text of what the ATC would say or a structure containing the data that would be needed to turn into spoken text. If ED action this request then I would be happy to discuss this bit in more detail. (There would probably need to be some sort of push mechanism or method that can be polled for updates to be transmitted when ATC wants to contact the player. A new event in the event steam would be a good method I think, happy to discuss that if ED proceeds with this request.) As this new ATC is in active development I hope this request can be actioned more easily in the code being written now. A side request would be to expose the existing radio APIs so that we can do the same thing (For example being able to contact tankers via voice for air-to-air refueling operations).

OnRetech Sinai map WIP

Update 1-14-23 ED changed the blending mode so the waypoints got darker too. Fixed. The default map overlay was useless to me because of its format. Made waypoint marker and names smaller. Centered the waypoint numbers in the circles. Darkened the background map. Adjustments Waypoint color can be changed by line 6 in definitions.lua. Darkness of background map can be adjusted by line 78 in map_page.lua INSTALL: Extract to main DCS install path or use Mod Manager. Does not pass IC. DOWNLOAD ********************************************************************************************** OPTIONAL Below are sharper raster maps. They improve readability of both Kneeboard and TAD maps. I only ran the files through sharpen filter. Image sizes are not changed. Caucasus (1.6GB) Mariana Islands (1.2GB) Persian Gulf (0.7GB) Syria (0.6GB) INSTALL: Extract to main DCS install path or use Mod Manager. Does not pass IC.

I'm not sure I got the point of this, but for me the most fun is produced by an afterburner that looks as close to the real thing as it could.

Thx for screenshot and small update! Looks nice and promising. BUT Pls also test the map in VR mode and optimalize it for VR users. Its very important thing. Dont do the same mistake like Razbam with his SA map (performance issues) I hope you use the same SDK like ED/Ugra (for example for Syria or PG map), as I know Razbam is used different SDK and the problem is here I suppose. Btw. can you show us the whole area covered in DCS by this map? I saw this picture in one topic (the whole area, not only red box), Id like to know is it true or not. Thx.

Mit AviaStorm ist der Thread "Licensed Third Party Projects" im englischen Teil des DCS-Forums in kürzester Zeit auf stolze 20 Unternehmen angewachsen. Allen Neuen viel Erfolg!

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!

More realistic doesn't necessarily mean flies like players. There are plenty of examples IRL of real pilots reacting late, or not reacting at all when shot at, and just flying into an incoming weapon.

I do some research, because it irritated me when the pilot dies of literally everything, for twenty hits I had the opportunity to eject maybe once. I am addressing this topic more to the game developers as a temporary solution @BIGNEWY In F-16C.lua line 652 we need to set "critical_damage=" to 50. Now You got chance to eject safely Should works also in F-18, where pilot also dies often.

Last night (on the 18th aptly enough), the DangerDogz invited a number of the DCS community members to partake in a recreation of the Amiens Prison Raid. Despite a few small niggles it went extremely well and feedback has been overwhelmingly positive - I certainly had fun despite having flown the mission more times than I can count during the course of testing! Some screenshots, all courtesy of @MJDixon, for your delectation:

That's gotta be the best sales pitch ever! If I manage to save enough money for a new PC, I might give it a go...

Welcome to the forums @Timo Niemelä - it is great to see that our work sparks interest even outside of DCS. I hope you find what you came looking for. The mach 4.3 is often taken, I would kindly suggest, wrongly, as a normal employment max speed, while it was only demonstrated as capable, not guiding, etc etc. You can see this is demonstrated for the DCS phoenix as well here: The NASA tests show much more close to normal employment conditions, and indicate a top speed of around m3.4-3.5ish. However, without speculating too much on details, indeed an improved guidance will help both the A and the C with terminal energy, etc. But not by that much that it would turn out as a silver bullet. The C being expected to be faster and then turning out to be what it really was, is another story, as with the same impulse and a slightly heavier weight, the logical expectation is to be slightly slower. However this is completely negligable in regards to its true benefit, which is a much improved guidance. I hope that makes sense.

We do have access to real data, and we are not doing this to balance Multiplayer. If I may refer again to @JNelson's post above, you can take a look for yourself just how close the phoenix is to real data. I really cannot stress this enough, how utterly unimportant Mulitplayer balance is to us. It has zero bearing on any of our decisions. Please be so kind and stop insisting on this, it only spreads an entirely wrong rumor. Thank you! Jester's behavior in both cases is a limitation of Jester and a consequence of how he works. If he calls missiles from 60 miles that have no RWR warning or show on the radar, that is a bug though, and I would kindly like to ask you to make a report about it, especially if you have a track that would help. We reworked his missile calling behavior a while ago, but it is very possible that bugs remain, which we have overlooked so far. Any input to help us improve this is much appreciated, thank you!

Ну почему же. У меня даже в обучающих миссиях, где в принципе не требуется запускать вертолет, есть триггер который с высокой вероятностью создаст отказ двигателя если игрок захочет полетать без разрешения и полетать слишком далеко. (туда где я не навел антураж). ибо нефиг

I guess you don't like the "study" part of study sim. Common occurance in the DCS community.

Hmmm, while reading this it dawned on me that I happened to experience this sudden pitch-up "issue" just about when I was to cross a threshold a lot when coming in to land on Qeshm island rwy 05. In our group we had a campaign where I had to land there 4 times and out of those 4 times at least 2 times I got this pitch up movement. I'll try to do couple of landings there to see if I can reproduce it in a short track as I know without them it's next to impossible to find the reason for this.

You have been around a long time hanab, you should understand by now everything takes a long time, nothing is going to change that. We understand the community want more information, but you are correct, we will only pass the information when we are ready to, we all have to remain patient. thanks

Multi threading implies multi core. Normally the operating system decides which core executes a thread. If you have a hundred cores, the OS may decide to use them all. For performance expectations: running a mission from a local server (same pc as you play on) gives you a nice preview for just the ai being run in a different thread. The impact is huge. Just try it. When more things are run in parallel the game might show the same performance as Solitaire. I am not involved in ED, nor DCS development, just an ex-programmer who loves the performance effects of multi threading.

null

I'm pretty sure it's this: manual: https://www.gamesdatabase.org/Media/SYSTEM/Microsoft_DOS/manual/Formated/Tornado.pdf Video of planner: There are some interesting ideas for sure, but I know if I saw the two side by side I'd be able to pick out which one was ancient.

I have a high end AMD system and G2. I mostly fly low level ground attack ie Viggen. Like most I have spent a LOT of time messing with shaders/mods/settings trying to get DCS to run smooth and look good. In the end I just ran at 45 locked so all maps would run OK. My expectations of improvement were low for what this might do for me. I set aside a full day to set it up, expecting the usual drama with this sort of thing. I cleaned DCS, but kept saved games to compare with the DCS settings I had already settled on. Well bugger me. I had it up and running in 45 minutes. And the difference..OMG what an improvement. Clarity of visuals is hugely improved, and the the ground slides by so smoooothly in Caucasus. The step change is up there with a GPU upgrade. Very very happy. What am I gonna do with the rest of my day? Oh I know....just play DCS...

Ну как в чем разница...Обучение это можно вообще без включения компьютера выполнять (или запуска двигателя). Сиди себе, читай ... запоминай, изучай. (В моих миссиях по радиоборудованию именно так и происходит кстати. Никаких полетов там нет). А Тренировка - это практические применение полученных навыков, но не (не обязательно)в боевых условиях. И да! можно запилить себе кучу разнообразных миссий. Потратив н-ное количество драгоценного времени. Но в идеале , хотелось бы иметь уже готовые сделанные кем то. А еще лучше тот самый открытый мир, где все необходимые навыки можно было бы применять просто потому что они возникали бы автоматически как ив реальной жизни. Ну простой пример. Допустим я хочу простую миссию. Перелет например из Крымска - Майкоп. Все скажут, ой! это вообще легкотня́. Поставил свой самолет в редакторе и лети себе. Да! НО! разве это нормально ? лететь в пустом бездушном мире ? Разве это атмосферно? Ведь хочется какого то антуража. Чтоб на аэродроме стояли самолетики и вертолетики. Чтоб пролетая другие аэродромы - они тоже были не пустые. И вот давайте посчитаем сколько нужно времени чтобы создать на всех аэродромах - подобие жизни. А без всего этого это в буквальном смысле херня на постном масле. Все аэродромы вымершие, заброшенные. Поэтому не так все просто. Хочется культурно летать. А не просто под забором накидываться лишь бы нажраться. Ведь из таких мелочей и строиться интересная картина.

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 !!"

Boy oh boy, are some people gonna be negatively surprised by a more realistic AI, regarding their kill ratios....

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.

Summary: DCS World is creating invalid ballistics objects which are not cleaned up. These ballistics objects persist until mission restart and have a significant impact on the performance of Multiplayer servers, measured in "Server FPS" or the number of simulation frames per second that the server is processing. Background: Ballistics objects are spawned whenever a rapid fire weapon starts firing. They may also be spawned when cluster munitions are dispensed but I have been unable to confirm that. Ballistics Objects tend to have an impact on Server FPS which depends on the power of the server, the number of objects and, apparently, the number of connected clients. This is because the server has to spend time calculating the trajectories and other properties (Collisions etc.) of these ballistic objects. Here is an example of Ballistics Objects being spawned when rapid-fire weapons fire. You can see that the number of Ballistics objects in the mission spike when a shooting event starts and the resulting impact on server FPS. You can also see that the number drops back to 0 as the ballistics objects expire. (Note: The below graphs come from a liberation mission running with only AI running on a home-server) Bug: There are times, however, when Ballistics objects increase without an associated shooting event (Or any other event that I can find). You can also see that after this jump the objects are not cleaned up and the number of ballistics objects in-mission steadily accumulates. If we look at these objects we can see that they are invalid and they are always identical aside from the main ID. Their type is all 0, their coordinates are all 0 and the lat/lon is always at map origin, the country is 99 which is not in the country enum. Clearly these are not something that should exist. "33584385": { "Pitch": 0, "Type": { "level3": 0, "level1": 0, "level4": 0, "level2": 0 }, "Country": 99, "Coalition": "Enemies", "Flags": { "Jamming": false, "IRJamming": false, "Born": false, "Static": false, "Invisible": false, "Human": false, "AI_ON": true, "RadarActive": false }, "Name": "", "Position": { "y": 0, "x": 0, "z": 0 }, "Heading": 6.2831854820251, "LatLongAlt": { "Long": 34.265515188456, "Lat": 45.129497060329, "Alt": 0 }, "CoalitionID": 0, "Bank": 0 } I have also noticed that these invalid objects tend to (but not always) spawn 76 objects at a time as evidenced below (Note: This graph is from a Hoggit Georgia At War session). The trackfile for this Liberation mission can be found in the attached `liberation-mission.trk` which is tiny because, I assume, there is only AI. Impact: The accumulation of these Ballistics Objects has a deleterious impact on the Hoggit multiplayer servers (And potentially others, but Hoggit is what I was analysing) due to the fact that the server still has to assign time to process them even though they are doing nothing. Here is a graph of a typical mission on Hoggit Georgia At War. You can see that the server FPS steadily decreases as the number of Ballistics objects increases. I could find no other metrics that shows such a correlation. You can also see that the number of players also has an impact on the server FPS in that the FPS recovers very slightly as player count drops at the end. I am not sure if the number of players amplifies the impact of the ballistics objects but my assumption is yes because on a server with very few players the impact is not as great. (Note: The below graphs come from the Hoggit "Georgia At War" server) As well as a corresponding increase in CPU usage: You can see here that the number of invalid Ballistics objects is in the thousands. However I have also observed that this depends on which of the two missions that make up "Georgia At War" is running (P1 or P2). In one mission the Invalid ballistics objects consistently numbers in the hundreds and one in the thousands. However even just a few hundred ballistics objects has a massive impact as well. I have observed this behaviour across about 20 different mission sessions. Track files for some GAW sessions with this ballistic object accumulation can be found here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1-_Ae-h6dl5s2k9v1FWwfkME0OBOflbWt (Size warning. 300-400MB) Request: Eagle Dynamics to find the root cause for these invalid ballistics objects being spawned and fix it. liberation-mission.trk

This is just a general request for the modeling of rivers on all maps. Regions like Iran can have dry and wet seasons which drastically affect the state of rivers. The map as it is seems to model a dry season as many rivers appear as small streams or even dry. It would be nice if they varied with seasons, or if this is not possible I think having them a little more full would be an improvement. This is not just for visual reasons, deeper rivers would increase the value of bridges. Sometimes it looks underwhelming to take out a bridge that spans a dry ditch that is barely lower than the surrounding the land. If a major river was flowing under that bridge, its loss would seem more impactful.

I only watched the first track, but boy oh boy, if that's your definition of "low g maneuvers" during pull-ups, then I don't want to know what you consider as "high g maneuvers" :D. Mate, you were hamfisting this plane hard, loading between 5.5 and 6 g on each pull-up. Remember that the Mossie was rated for 6 max, had bob weight installed in the pitch control system specifically to make over-3 g maneuvers harder for the pilots (otherwise they would be able to overload the plane too easily because of extremely sensitive elvator), and the pilots didn't exceed 4 g in typical diving attacks. Granted, we don't have the equivalent of F2-cam g-meter in cockpit, but if you can see wingtips flexing, that in itself means the plane is getting beaten up. Seeing wingtip contrails means the Mossie is already turning hard, no need to pull even tighter. Keep in mind that simulated stress damage is cumulative in DCS - Mossie might take a few hard pull-ups like the ones you did, but the damage treshold gets lower and lower with each one, so the plane will break up mid air eventually.

Start modest, build as time goes, most of us came into it like that as well. No need for the bestest and greatest right away. Should be decent, should have it work nice on medium to high. Can be a very much cheap entry stick at first. Then you see how you like it, and expand. Thus, building a medium to average gaming PC, that can be expanded upon in the future, is the best way to go for starters. Self-built and thus modular. You may very well not like it, or need to time to grow to like it, etc. and then you can still buy an aficionado joystick and the latest of latest of gaming hardware.. Generally, it uh, ends like that I shall warn you though.

Here is a fresh link to enable you to download the mod if you so wish https://drive.google.com/file/d/1srei9-X1Hb7MtCZi35Qmj2HgQDQGPQUX/view?usp=sharing

I've got 7 books about fighter planes in my bookshelf (6 of which are about the F-14), but I didn't even begin to comprehend the basics of the fine art of modern air combat until I began watching DCS videos on youtube. So yes, this game has fascinating, educational value, even for those who do not play it! Yes, it's only a simulator, but clearly the best representation of the actual capabilities of fighter jets we can have in a public space. Since I've allowed myself to become a "Tomcat fanboy", it was disappointing to learn that you can't call the Phoenix a hypersonic missile (especially since it's such a trendy word at the moment, ha ha)....but now I have an even deeper appreciation for the fine nuances that actually matter in the right context. That is thanks to you. And I guess this has been a lesson that all missile max speed figures should be taken with a grain of salt... Since I am what you might call "an information hoarder", I'd be overjoyed if you could make a thread / share the sources on publicly available info on the AIM-54C/C+ (AIM-54A is much easier to find, but I've been chasing any document that says the C could go active on its own). Doens't matter that much if you can't though, I know everything you apply to the game is based on solid source material. Thumbs up for you guys! P.S. So disappointed that the US Navy never went through with the AIM-152. The big Cat could have had so much sharper claws...

ACLS is still WIP, same as AT. Our apologies that this takes a bit longer, but it is a fairly complicated item.

this is reported and will be fixed in a future patch. thanks

With this post confirming work on ATC features: https://www.facebook.com/eagle.dynamics/posts/10166982283080341 I am reiterating my hope that ED can de-couple the main ATC logic from the F10 user interface and provide mission scripting environment APIs so that we can implement alternative interfaces in both single and multiplayer environments.

I still disagree. Apart from the point that I don't get why you reduce my statement just to Vulkan, although I said "..and above all multicore could be the main reasons for further income", I for one have already problems with buying new maps and modules, because I exclusively play DCS in VR, and with all those more and more demanding products, my fun using DCS in VR gets more and more reduced. (And it is not that I couldn't affort modern hardware, there is just none that does the job like multicore would do.) Maybe not all people buy because of APIs but all of us know what feels better as soon as we use it. So my statement is: without Vulkan and above all without multicore DCS would get a hard time with selling anything (to people like me) as soon, as new contenders come up. And I say this havy hartedly as a DCS fan boy. And I repeat: I bet ED knows that better than we do. So I'm not too much concerned about the future of DCS.

I voted Thud, but a Hawker Hunter would be a great shout if you are looking for something historical, versatile and prolific, not to mention one of the best lookers too.

I think this is the crux of the matter. To be blunt, it seems that you believe that you are special because you possess the rare "skill" to start the Hornet in DCS. It's not difficult, and you probably could train a chipmunk to do it. There is no skill involved. People (me included) may want DCS's realism without the hassle of some skill-less busy-work that involves pushing buttons in the correct sequence while sitting on the tarmac. 5 Minutes of quality time wasted for most but die-hard enthusiasts. The great thing about DCS is that I can do a cold-start if I want to. Forcing me to do it would make DCS much less enjoyable. Look: if you need skill to press a few buttons in the correct sequence, you have other problems. If you find it difficult to press a few buttons you would not be typing on a keyboard. We all possess this skill. So don't kid yourself believing that a DCS start-up sequence has anything to do with skill. Enforcing manual/cold starts serves one purpose (and that can be a valid purpose): to filter people from your server who don't share an obsession with procedural matters, and to include all those who think they are special because they can remember a trivial sequence of button presses. So it's a matter of player preference really; difficulty, skill or realism do not enter the picture.

Actually you don't, I just did a quick test, tank was basically invisible in FLIR, but if I cued IR Maverick with targeting pod in TV mode I could get a lock despite not seeing anything in its camera. And it was an actual lock, not force correlate. It doesn't care about contrast or anything, it just tracks objects, but there are some rules implemented to mimic limitations and imperfections or sensors. Which is perfectly fine mind you, there is no point in making proper simulation of every little aspect of the game

The DCS ME is already intuitive and better in that it supports scripting and triggers, doesn't have a billion pop windows, considers more missions than CAP, Strike, and AWACS, has multiple map view types, is better at highlighting unit positions, is more granular with numerical input, has a deeper weather and time system, is more flexible in adding waypoints, and of course was built with more than just one plane in mind. I have to say again, you're being unreasonable and a bit stuck in a biased view if you think an entire existing system should be tossed out for another. There are elements from Tornado that would be nice to have in DCS, like ambiguity on the map for enemy unit locations and paths. Pick out the good things and think about how they can be integrated into DCS. Complete replacement is kind of ridiculous.

I am excited if they are, but they need to be out there in force to be supported, or the people creating them should send units to ED to support as well.

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

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.

@rodion_herrera In mission editor you can set failures, After setting this i end up with this, i think it is as close as you can get. You just need to wait 1 or 2 min before take off, so the failures kick in.

Ahahah bravo! You could say 2 weeks…

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.