Leaderboard

Hello, I'm editing a series of training missions for the recently released OV-10A Bronco aircraft Mod, I'm opening this thread to get feedback and provide support for them in case of any bugs. I've already completed three Missions for the Basic Training and now intend to proceed with further Missions to cover Weapons Use, for now the Training looks like this: The download file link is: (deleted) I also added an Encyclopedia entry to the Mod, just to make it more complete: Finally, here are some video walkthroughs of each Mission, so that you can see how they work before trying them yourselves: M01 - Cold Start, Taxi & Take-Off: M02 - VFR Circuit Landing, Taxi & Shutdown: M03 - Tacan Navigation: Edit: 28/Sep/22 ... added first Weapons Training mission: M05 Gun Strafing Edit: 8/Oct/22 ... added mission: M06 Rockets Use: Edit: 12/Oct/22 ... added mission: M07 Dive Bombing. Edit: 15/Oct/22 ... added mission M08 Low-level Bombing with high-drag bombs. Edit: October 27, today I finished the last mission of this Training set: M09 - Air-Air missiles employment. This completes the Training set, lets hope that the next DCS version won't break them If a user encounters a bug or mission error, please post it here and I will do my best to fix it. UPDATE 30/Nov/2022: The upcoming next release of the OV-10 Mod, version 1.08, will include these training missions, so this file is no longer available. Instead, download the latest release of the OV-10A Mod. UPDATE 20/Dec/2024: A person misunderstood why the User File no longer contained the missions: "AH_menace 12/19/2024 16:46:20 You have made the missions unavailable, and the download is only a screenshot? You're requiring the downloader to visit your website, create an account, then hunt around in an attempt to find the file? Nope, not going to happen. reported... " So I will simply delete the file to avoid confusion. Best regards, Eduardo

What market? People seems to forget just how much of a small niche this market actually is, DCS currently has 1500 players on the last day at Steam, IL-2 only 300 players, while a game like Dota2 has over 700,000 …. (Data from https://steamdb.info/graph/ ) See the difference? We are so lucky to have ED on this market, that it annoys the sh.. out of me when I read some of the petty complains that show up on this Forum.

Симулятор сравнили с колоноскопом... наконец я дожил до этого момента.

Подготовка Ка-50 III к раннему доступу уже на финишной прямой.

DCS is an amazing sim. Yeah, it has bugs, many things on the core game do not work. But once you stop to watch it, listen to it, you'll notice that you have in hand is an amazing piece of computer engineering. People tend not to realize it. Also, people ask, scream, complain, demand for realism! And then when they get realism they scream, complain and demand for it to be less difficult. DCS, for me at least, conveys this 'realism". Modern jets are very easy to fly, hard to learn the systems. Older airplanes, warbirds included, are hard to learn. No wonder why the numbers of accidents in training were relatively high. Because they are unforgiving. Like you said, you made a stupid mistake, but by the way the aircraft was configured, it became very, very difficult for you to recover it. That's the beauty of this sim, say what you say, but DCS is amazing.

This is a software tool that helps to plan "Pop-Up" attacks in the F-16C that make use of the VRP/PUP/OA1/2 guiding symbology that is built in to the F-16. Parameters and initial calculations used in the software come from USAF F-16 flight manuals (cited in instruction manual). The following video is an example of an attack run planned using this software: Pop-up attack run example video(2:00 for symbology details) The software takes parameters entered by the User and calculates the angles, distances, and so forth of the desired attack run and exports a Kneeboard (or a set of Kneeboards sweeping a parameter). The exported kneeboard has a schematic of the attack run and detailed DED programming parameters to correctly generate the HUD/HMD symbology to guide the planned attack run. Example of exported kneeboard in attached images. I've also included a user manual (attached) with the software. It explains in detail the various segments and parameters of a pop-up attack run as well as instructions on how to use the software. In addition I have included some simple practice missions that one can use to get started with the software and attack planning. Lastly, there is a fonts directory that contains the fonts used in the software. I will eventually figure out how to embed them in the software itself but at the moment the simplest solution is to add those two fonts on the user's computer. Detailed font installation instructions are also in the included manual. This is a work in progress, I appreciate the feedback I've received and hope that any one using the software posts any errors they find or questions they have below. CHANGELOG: UPDATED SEPTEMBER 19 2022 ----- Fixed OA1/2 altitudes and distributed with Font Pack used in the software to solve misplaced spacings and so forth To do: Incorporate with DTC mod to automate entry Clean up and publish mathematical derivations Download Link: Link [ED User Files] kikaku'sViperAttackProfileCalculator_for_DCS-Manual.pdf

I respect your opinion, I do, but I also have to disagree, and I think that you will likely find that many folks will disagree with you regarding its usefulness. It has its place online as much as offline, as much as in air to air as in air to ground, pitted agains its contemporary cannon fodder, or a much more modern and advanced challenge - it is, in the end, what you make of it. So, if for you it has a seemingly narrow purpose, to best eagles, vipers and hornets day in day out online, all the time, with a nigh 100% success rate, then yes, I guess one could argue that it is useless. But the idea to make it purposefully unrealistic to give it a place - in what exactly? - is not something that is in any way feasible, or acceptable, when doing realistic simulations. Thank you for your kind understanding.

ATTN Repainters!!!!! We really DO NEED THIS: Euro camo on OV-10s:

Yes, that's what I mean. Standar procedure is: Initial at 2000' QFE 350kt Descend 1500' QFE Break (middle of runway) 60°, idle, airbrakes on 220kt: check TNS warning, airbakes off Check engine response by slightly increasing RPM Gear down APP mode Check 3 greens no red light Check SPAD (frein light off) Trim plane At AOA 13° increase RPM Stabilise AOA at 14° and keep note of speed Check hydraulic pressure Turn when runway is 45° aft Slope - 7 to - 8° AOB around 40° Check 900' at 90° from runway AOB on demand to get on axis AP off at 200' VVI on runway threshold Idle when overflying the runway threshold, nose on runway end Once touched down: keep nose up until 110kt, unless in case of drag chute use (nose down ASAP) Nose wheel on runway: DIRAV on Check engine on ground idle Braking action : check - 0.2<Jx<-0.3 Once feeling at ease with this procedure, it can be expedited : Break beginning of runway at any speed (540kt+) Maximum G break Start final turn abeam threshold Some people use Airbrakes when wheels on the ground.

Thank you, we will take a look!

Xstounds залил короткий ролик по ЧА3!!! Может скоро ожидать новостей?

This. It even scares me when I see how much money is spent and earned with LOL or FN skins, thus I appreciate every single day that there are people at ED and partners, dedicated to their dream which is coincidently matching mine. So I'm eager to get news on multithreading as soon as ED has something to share. (Just to get back to topic.)

got the base panels done and started moving my electronics over, the top panels were going to be ready for engraving, but the clear coat cracked, so I'm going to have to sand and repaint, you can see I started on some of them already. There is to be faux wear and tear, but I want them clean for the engraving.

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:

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

Some work in progress.

playing a little...

my App doesnt install, it's a self contained launcher

Weibliche Tornado-WSOs gibt es bei der Luftwaffe. Mindestens eine ist mir bekannt, weil die mit mir 2019 auf dem Sea Survival war. Wie viele es derzeit insgesamt sind, entzieht sich meiner Kenntnis. Auch bei den weiblichen Frontseatern im T-Bird muss ich passen. Beim EF haben wir derzeit zwei weibliche Piloten, so viel ich weiß. Eine davon ist sogar noch kurze Zeit F-4 geflogen.

I just tried above 36k again, and indeed, unless one is precisely at null rate, and well below m 0.9, it just pulls straight down. Definitely a bug. Thanks again for all the feedback!

Progress...

Hi, as far as we know, the partial cover for instruments is not used on the MB-339 but if we get more information (or someone can pass us them, pictures or documents applied to the MB-339) we can take into consideration to add it.

One more thing is to be trimmed, not holding level with stick force, because IRC the AP system only manipulated trim and can only do so at a limited speed.

Sorry typo. I was in a rush.

The DCS F-16C basically has no damage model so it's not unexpected to see this kind of behaviour. In my experience you pretty much experience three different damage states in the F-16: 1. Purely visual damage. 2. Severe fuel leak. 3. Dead pilot with varying degrees of wing detachment. Until we get a proper damage model things will stay this way. For example, I was really stoked when the KS-19 was released by ED but, after trying it a few times, I realized that the only two outcomes are no damage at all or a fuel leak that will drain you in under a minute. There's no in-between. I also agree that proximity fuses is a much needed feature in DCS but, just like the KS-19, it won't really matter as long as we don't have a proper damage model and fragmentation damage.

jsut to Note. eVGA terminated the AIB Partnership, not nVidia. nVidia did announce procing regulations started with 4000 Series a few months back. eVGA likely did not like that.

Nice work guys. Just noticed i can now post cat gifs in the forums, Bad move by ED that one.

No, not my voice .. being a non-native english speaker I'm afraid that many users wouldn't understand what I'm saying. I'm using a text-to-speech engine, this one: https://ttsfree.com/#google_vignette It has a lot of different voices, on these missions I'm using US, Eric, with 10% faster voice speech.

Hi rudel, Just a question: In the PDF that comes with the OV-10, these speeds are shown: The maximum speed for the landing gear is 158 knots. The maximum speed for the Mid flaps is 170 knots. The maximum speed for the full flaps is 130 knots. In your VFR Landing, you have full flaps and gear down with 160 knots airspeed. Maybe the actual NATOPS or other flight manual shows different speeds than the Split-Air PDF. Just asking. I have typically flown approaches much slower based on the 130 knot full flaps recommendation. It all worked out fine for you, though, and higher speeds would be preferable to me for sure!

null

There are 6 features still to do. 4 of them are already in progress and the last two will be added after early access. UFC BU page [WIP] Update flight model for ground effect, takeoff pitch effects, auto-pilot based on FPM, touch and go handling, and other remaining flight model issues [WIP] LOFT modes, ARM, JPF, and other JDAM and JSOW remaining functions [WIP] INS / GPS full simulation and alignment (carrier and ground) [WIP] Mk-77 firebomb (visual effect first required, after early access) GEN-X decoy (missing needed data, after early access)

At least 2yrs on from the first discussions and approx a year since testing was supposedly taking place. Patience is a virtue but it also runs thin. Lets hope we get some solid news soon (this year!) Or that someone has enough sense to see the gap in the market and produce an alternative product.

Older missions used older sliders and settings so make sure those are set properly too, esp. density to 0. There were also old presets at the bottom where you could select "clear".

Симулятор самолёта сравнили с симулятором колоноскопа. В обоих случаях реализм оказался недостаточным. Вернусь к своему предложению - "жопомер-индикатору". У авианосца есть некий Improved Fresnel Lens Optical Landing System (IFLOLS), который в симуляторе ED сочла нужным продублировать, создав его увеличенное изображение, которое можно двигать по экрану (или убрать с экрана). Аналогично можно было бы сделать индикатор ускорения.

That's one step that won't need to be done, but there is still the issue of what all the switches and dials do as well as how the radar bombing system worked it will be awesome if you get the paper work

У меня оба шлема. Нет смысла. Q2 работает быстрее. HP немного четче но очень резкий переход sweet spot у Q2 пятно побольше и не так чувствуется переход но все индивидуально ))

I couldn't find a straight answer in the manual to quote, but this is in the CMDS_ALE47.lua: -- MAN 6 - Wall Dispense button, Panic programs[ProgramNames.MAN_6] = {} programs[ProgramNames.MAN_6]["chaff"] = 2 programs[ProgramNames.MAN_6]["flare"] = 2 programs[ProgramNames.MAN_6]["intv"] = 0.75 programs[ProgramNames.MAN_6]["cycle"] = 20

Dubito, da profano, che ci siano API specifiche per quel singolo aspetto: a livello di codice si tratta, "semplicemente", di far comunicare i dati di quota/altitudine con il modello di volo affinché il modulo mantenga un assetto entro certo valori. Di solito le API sono legate ad aspetti complessi/articolati come sensori AA, AG, POD (o lo stesso modello di volo) in modo che lo sviluppatore possa sfruttare un'interfaccia "già pronta" che comunichi direttamente con il software senza dover scrivere ogni volta decine/migliaia di linee di codice. Bye Phant

Most likely it is the check rate of the trigger, which is once every second, and the size of the zone. If the trigger zone is to small, speed of the aircraft is high enough, and a bit of luck then it is possible for the aircraft to enter and exit the trigger zone between the checks. Making the trigger zone larger or using scripting to check at a faster rate are the solutions.

IronMike and Timo: Per IronMike, it was true regarding trying DCS. I share the sentiment regarding learning process, and also the resulting enjoyment knowing how to employ (or at least make sense of) the knowledge and data so research and presented. It was March of 2019. I was walking out of Target. I googled F-14 from Youtube just for fun then found the "ANYTIME, BABY!!" release trailer/video. I was blown away not only that I haven't seen an F-14 sim anywhere since the days of Microprose's F-14 Fleet Defender, but the graphics, the music, and then the cinematics all were too captivating for me to ignore. I began looking around to learn more. If my memory serves me right, I eventually came across the post "Scan, Lock, Fire" from Heatblur. Turned out they also modelled the radar and weapon system. Oh My GAWD!! That green colored CRT "fishbowl" looking TID, the AWG-9, and the mighty AIM-54s. I knew I had to get back into flight simming just for the TOMCAT. I liked the Falcon, the Hornet, but the Tomcat... Next thing I know, I googled the required specs to experience it. Then I realized it is part of the DCS module collection; within two months, I built a DCS gaming rig (I haven't had a gaming anything since 2003. Lots to learn but worth all of it) for what but oh yes that ol 'Grumman Cat. Now, here we are. I am able to enjoy the Grumman F-14 Tomcat faithfully recreated by Heatblur, learn its AWG-9 kirks and strengths, and even dab into intercept geometry (thanks to extensive writeup and analysis from Xarov of Fly-and-Wire, meanwhile also thanks to Chuck's Guide). I love it. Last but not least, the group of enthusiasts that contribute to this F-14 experience is immense, at times, quite intense (). To end, a modest system with medium in-game settings, a simple flight stick, a copy of Heatblur's F-14, afterward, your desire and time available are the only limits, friend. Flying and admiring is fun, and the awe that comes from learning how to employ them are even better! Thanks, IronMike and Heatblur. You guys have brought me an immense opportunity to rekindle with my youth... and with that, pure joy. Oh hell, it is more then joy now--it's a freaking journey!! p.s: If Timo Niemelä is reading this, have a peek at FlyandWire.com, grab and skim the Chuck's Guide for the F-14 Tomcat. I don't mind getting blame for getting you closer the Grumman Tomcat. Lastly, I left you a picture here. It as made by someone at Hoggit subreddit, Ellyrion, more then three years ago. Cheers!

When you increase the collective, the heading hold attempts to maintain heading and will “apply pedal” as necessary to make this happen. I suspect this is what’s happening, the heading hold is putting in pedal to counteract the main rotor torque (which is what it’s supposed to do) and you’re getting the roll.

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.

As many things are still in testing since many years or month : - vulkan - dynamic campaign - dynamic weather For all of that it will be cool to have News…. (and i don’t speak about all EA modules that are not finished since many years)

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

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: 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.