Leaderboard

Dear All, Apologies for the late notice on this; with our intense pace currently, we’re quieter than usual and time has flown since the AIM-54 update. Today’s patch does not include any changes for the Viggen or F-14. Recently, lead times changed significantly for DCS patches, and while we managed to ship our large Phoenix overhaul last update, there was only a very very small gap to contribute to this patch and so we focused on shipping a larger update for the F-14 and Viggen in the October patch. Major features which will release will be, amongst others, the new cockpit pilot bodies, Viggen art updates, a new free campaign for the F-14A, and the new full implementation of jamming and associated EW effects in the AWG-9 radar. We'll also be updating the Forrestals with various improvements and adjustments. We’ll do an in-depth dive on the last part soon to give you all an idea of what to expect, as with the AIM-54 as it’s a rather large update to the F-14’s radar and another massive step towards full completion. Thank you for all the support and stay tuned for the breakdown on the EW/Jamming effects! Sincerely, HB null

I read this article today as well, and this is my response because I know it will probably snowball: 1) This is one AH-64 pilot's impression of the DCS AH-64D. Multiple real pilots that have just as much experience flying it have (at great length) provided feedback on recommended improvements to the flight model and SCAS characteristics of the DCS AH-64D. Anyone that has been around this forum section for longer than two weeks has seen myself or one of the other SME's openly state that there are inaccuracies with the flight model that are actively being addressed by the dev team. This isn't some big revelation. But hardware does play a big role in simulation, so his own assessment is no less subjective than any other pilot's. 2) From what I gathered reading the article, the author did not seem to understand that the aircraft is in fact representative of a very specific avionics version and era, as stated in the FAQ section on the forums as well as the manual. His statement that the aircraft represents multiple aircraft versions across 15 years is 99.9% false (There is a discrepancy in the shape of the underside of the engine nacelles, but that is a known item). Beyond that, there are no known inaccuracies based on the configuration that is modeled. He does not identify any of these inaccuracies that he is referring to, which makes it impossible to judge what his assessment is based on. Further, he makes references to "equipment timelines" that were misunderstood or unknown. Again, without him identifying what he is referring to, the statement itself is probably not within the proper context. For example, there is no BFT antenna installed because this system is not planned for implementation due to sensitivity reasons. 3) In one instance, he admits that he doesn't know what systems are fully modeled and which ones are actually "inaccurately implemented". As an example, he mentions that the ice detector is cycling to random values, yet the stickied posts in this section list the anti-icing systems as "later in Early Access". But then he subsequently makes a series of very generic assessments on such systems, after admitting he isn't sure which version of the AH-64D is being modeled, although he does say it seems to be based on an older version of the software. Without knowing what version is being modeled (which, again, is listed here and in the manual), how can he assess the accuracy of the avionics? If he is incorrectly assessing that this aircraft is a mash-up of many AH-64D versions (which it is not), than I can see how he may incorrectly see inaccuracies if he is expecting something different than what the DCS: AH-64D is modeled after. Elsewhere, he makes very generic statements about the pages. I get that he may not be going into detail due to sensitivity concerns, which I respect and support. But in doing so, it makes the credence of his assessment on the accuracy of the module in question if it is driven by generic statements and not quantifiable data. And before it happens, I want to stress this does not mean that it is ok to post real-world documentation on here to credit or disprove his assessments, nor mine. The reason I am posting this here is to bring awareness to the fact that his review is based on a broad misunderstanding of what the DCS: AH-64D is, or what it is not. There are additional things that I feel are questionable in the review, but these three items are the big ones. The author is very direct and honest with his review, so I will be equally direct and honest with what I am about to say: I suspect many people reading this post will probably interpret it as an ED team member that is speaking on behalf of Eagle Dynamics and their interests. I can assure you, this is not the case. I joined the ED team this summer because I wanted to contribute to DCS. This drive comes from the perspective of a player and as someone that is passionate about aerospace and bringing such experiences to those that might never have the opportunity to fly themselves. If anyone has read my posts in the past you know that I will be brutally honest about what is accurately modeled versus what needs improvement/refinement (short of restricted documentation/information or what is not appropriate for discussion of course). If I don't know something as fact, I will simply say I don't know or identify my statement as an opinion or as a "reasonable certainty". Overall, I get the impression the author did not not do his homework prior to writing a review, based on his own misunderstandings of the DCS: AH-64D. Therefore a lot of the content within that article should be taken with a grain of salt from the lack of specific context that was not provided.

Avia storm Tornado devlog Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

The newsletter for the MB-339 is expected for the 7th of October.

People please don't buy into the hype. Not just yet. The "double" or "tripple" performance in the marketing blurbs is probably with DLSS 3.0 enabled, there is no way that these video cards are so much faster than the previous generation in regular rendering. Don't drink the Kool Aid.

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

In this case they have succeeded with the " in two weeks TM"

Although this is what happens on a forum (and I guess what they are meant for in the first place), this whole discussion is pretty pointless if you ask me.. In the end, we're all on the same page and wish for improved performance within DCS. The sooner the better also. ED already gave their answer, so what's the point in trying to fish for more? For obvious reasons, ED will only provide us with news on this huge matter, when they are ready to do so. I don't understand why every week several people seem to think, that it helps when they ask for an update. Clearly the entire community is waiting for a news update, so why not just get in line and wait patiently like the rest of us. I think the main reason why some use strong wording in this, or any of the other threads on this topic, is that it gets a tad annoying. Like the kids in the back asking if we're there yet. Asking ain't gonna speed up the process and yes, ED knows this is what the community screams for. Don't be scared, ED won't forget telling us whenever there's something to be told.

No MB-339A and no dogfight AI they teased last week. Sure, the fixes are nice, but I don't see any big ticket stuff other than Mirage FM overhaul (which isn't from ED).

I'd doubt that, as this strategic bomber hasn't been announced. But maybe Vulkan? On a more serious note: For this update, I'm crossing my fingers for Apache 1st person pilot bodies and (long overdue) Syria map fixes

I waited for the announcement. I choked on the announcement. You guys can have em. I went to Ebay and ordered a used 3090. Should be fun trying to make it fit in my way too small case.

Хватит офф-топа!

You don't think that might have something to do with it's lack of core features that a large number of people have been complaining about for 4 years not being addressed, or at least not in a somewhat reasonable timeline? I think most DCS players, especially VR users, and those with mid tier components, have been pretty patient but I know quite a few that have just given up on the sim, at least until it's figured out. When ED says that multicore support is in the final stages of testing over a year ago, and announced it over 3 years ago, you can't help but feel strung along. If even 3 people are working on this project.. that's how many hours between them since it's been started... or even since it's been advertised at almost complete? That's over 6000 hours in just ONE year... let that sink in.

Altho it is labeled as fixed in the latest changelog GBU-24 timer is off. And it still drops way short. Shouldn't it correct for sooner or later release since it has large drop zone. It acts like a dumb bomb atm, if you drop a dumb bomb before or after the release cue hits the FPM it will fall short or long, same with GBU24 which has different drop envelope. gbu24 TTI timer .trk

As per title here's 2 screenshots to show this issue. after zooming out a certain amount, the numbers get replaced with 000 This also applies to default skins that come with the module, not just custom user made liveries

The symbology on the FCR/HSD for targets is occasionally "out of sync" with respect to the identification and evidently altitude as well. In the track, you can see I track a target which on the FCR page is yellow and on the HSD it's red. Also, the altitudes displayed are 1,000ft off. EDIT: Also sometimes Target A will be drawn over Target B on the FCR, but opposite on the HSD. FCR HSD symbology bug.miz.trk null null

Not a thing anymore in latest OB patch. Enjoy, it's beautiful. Thanks for bringing attention to this thread.

great tune. I always tough "run thru the jungle" was a great themesong for the F-4 but this is better

@MAESTR0and @FoxAlfaWorks! Thank you both! Reference to version: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/openbeta/2.7.18.30348/

In der EF Community hat eigentlich jeder einen Nickname, der wird von der Staffel aus mehreren Vorschlägen heraus festgelegt und abgestimmt. Für die Tornado Community weiß ich das wieder nicht, aber zumindest haben die, die ich näher kenne, einen. Es wird sich aber durchaus auch mal einfach mit dem Vornamen angeredet. Und in der Luft wird ja das Callsign der jeweiligen Flight verwendet, also etwa Raven One & Two für eine EF two-ship. Wäre Raven One eine GT, wäre der Frontseater One Alpha und der Backseater One Bravo. Hier mal was zum Lachen zum Thema pilot callsigns aus den USA: The 100+ Most Creative Pilot Callsigns With Explanations - Aviation Humor

Wow, really? That's a lot. However, you can't argue with this amazing price! (Not sure why this is what shows when I google RTX 4090)

This is intended. As per the manual PAL range is 15nm - https://www.heatblur.se/F-14Manual/general.html?highlight=pal#pilot-automatic-lockon-pal VSL HI/Low is 5nm - https://www.heatblur.se/F-14Manual/general.html?highlight=pal#vertical-scan-lockon-vsl

No MB-339 today, in case you are wondering.

Nice to see we got LOD1 and LOD2 3D models for the F-16C but the whole instrument panel (in the LOD1 and LOD2 3D models) slide to backward and left - compared to the main LOD-zero 3D model. ByTheWay: when will arrive LOD 3D models for the 3 Fulcrum (MiG-29A/G/S) and the Yak-52 models ? TY

All right, a small supplement for your kind words: https://www.psychologyofgames.com/2019/10/loading-when-were-willing-to-wait/ The essence is this:

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/309144-heatblur-mini-update-september-patch-jamming-pilot-body/#comment-5052915

I had a very nice first impression. Sound and feel got me from the get go. Especially the FM transfer from bomb truck to sleek fighter gets me every time.

I posted my own personal response to the article. I won't re-hash any of it here, since I don't want to beat a dead horse.

Except for the two details that Bremspropeller mentions and the problems with the radio editor, I´m happy with the F1

Hi, Thanks a lot for your very kind words .. I used to employ the ttsmp3.com text to speech, but the user @Tanuki44 suggested that I use instead the ttsfree.com, which turned out is much better and natural sounding, so kudos to him for the suggestion Thank you so much for the fedback, I will check the mission today and do my best to fix these issues. It's been a while since editing that mission and I can only remember that my main focus was that I tried to avoid having the user press the spacebar during it, as it would disrupt his handling of the plane at a critical stage of flight. Yes, it should be flared .. will fix it Will fix those too The Battery yes, the other switches are not mentioned on the NAVAIR procedure that I used as a guide: Correct, will fix that OK, will check that too Yes, I deviated from the official procedure here, as turning off the lights after the battery has been turned off, looked odd to me since you couldnt notice the efect of decreasing the lighting knobs, so I intended to first turn off the lights and afterwards doing the same with the battery. Thanks again for the feedback, I flew each mission a lot looking for bugs, but its always best to have other people's opinions and ideas. Best regards, Eduardo

I have been thinking this thought about The Channel and Normandie maps as well, as I'm sure many others with me. It would most assuredly require, as you say, radical change to the core game. But I don't think it's out of the question, just not in the near future. I've heard ED officials talk about dreams for the future of DCS, and that includes world wide coverage. They can do that in two ways, either rebuilding the entire world, using Google or Bing, or expand and improve existing maps. Those who live will see...

Yeah i agree no market at all in flight sims. MS2020 passed 2 million sales in a few months of release not to mention massive sales in thier internal marketplace addons. Oh and nice of you to call other members opinions "petty". I can see the name is very apt. That aside. I think hobgoblin sums it up nicely.

First, I will sit and wait. God know how many 40 cards will be available on Day 1, let alone the price. The more concerning thing is, what we have shown so far are with RTX or with DLSS3, so this one fly DCS, we have no idea how much better it may get.

Wait for the first bunch of benchmark results (I mean databases like 3DMark). From there you can roughly estimate the gains. I would be surprised if it is more than 30% in real world applications (that is other than special cases like DLSS and/or raytracing). Which is of coure not nothing. If you can afford it - go ahead. Why not. (let's see how real world prices and availability will be)

Glücklicherweise gibt es keine wichtigeren Probleme, als ob nun ein virtuelles Männeken (M/W/D) einen virtuellen und nicht sichtbaren Zipfel in der Hose hat, oder nicht.

Well, I've flown now often with George and also with "Real People" as CP/G. And the fact that George doesn't look for targets and dangers on his own is one of the things that kills me the most. If I'm traveling with a human co-pilot, then of course he doesn't see everything either, but especially when cruising to the Target, most of them scan the whole area ahead with infrared. I can't give any exact numbers, but that saves "us" our ass more often than George, who doesn't do anything if you don't press the George-Slave-Button like a madman every 2 seconds. Which of course is not cool at all, since you have enough to do to fly the helicopter.

Wow, these are amazing, absolutely top-notch! The flow, the writing and the scripting are all just excellent, and if it weren't for a few very minor pronunciation details, I wouldn't even have thought it was text-to-speech behind the VOs. Some minor details: OV10A - Training – M01 Cold Start, Taxi & Take-Off (by Rudel_chw) All the timings were flawless until rotation. After rotation, several messages overlapped and canceled each other out; those were, if memory serves: retracting the gear retracting the flaps at the proper speed setting the condition levers setting the correct attitude If you could make these texts stay on screen, players could read them even in case of overlaps; maybe also add a take-off walkthrough while still on the taxiway to prepare the player for the hectic sequence of events after rotation? OV10A - Training – M02 VFR Circuit Landing, Taxi & Shutdown (by Rudel_chw) Is the Bronco flared before touchdown? If so, a short note to flare just before touchdown should be added; this could come right after the note to reduce throttle just before touchdown. Shutdown: the highlights on the conditions levers for the FUEL SHUT-OFF position seem to be reversed (switching the right lever to FUEL SHUT-OFF removes the left highlight) Shutdown: Shouldn't Starter, Inverter, Crank Switches, Generators and Battery all be moved to their OFF positions? OV10 - Training - M03 Tacan Navigation (by Rudel_chw) Changing TACAN from 067X to 044X for the outer ring, left clicking increases from 06 through 07, 08, 09 to 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14; instead, players should right click to decrease down to 04. additional note: the right/left click behavior in the Bronco is currently inverted, compared to most other modules; in a future release, the left click may be correct here (Same as above) Shutdown: the highlights on the conditions levers for the FUEL SHUT-OFF position seem to be reversed (switching the right lever to FUEL SHUT-OFF removes the left highlight) Shutdown: TACAN has been set to OFF during taxi, and the mission does not automatically continue. Pressing SPACEBAR advances the mission. If you add "Press SPACEBAR to continue" here, all should be good. (Almost same as above; this time Battery was included) Shutdown: Shouldn't Starter, Inverter, Crank Switches and Generators all moved to their OFF positions?

I would argue it's the opposite. In the R-27 the USSR had finally achieved something approaching parity with the AIM-7. Without spending a page droning on about BVR, the tl;dr is you never want to fight on an equal footing if you can help it. The AIM-54C could help maintain the stand off advantage US aircraft had enjoyed since Vietnam until the AIM-120 and AIM-152 could be completed, so they'd use it. It's a shame history didn't quite work out the way they expected.

There was comments made awhile back about the Dauphin. I am praying to god they do the Aerospatiale Panther from the later 80's up to/or present day version. This is a shoe in for sure with DCS. This is still one of the most impressive demonstrations I have scene as a kid growing up. The first demo when I was younger actually put the Apache on the Spot. The Apache did not perform as well as the Panther when it came to flight performance. Really hope to see the old girl in DCS someday! Anything from the old Aerospatiale/American Eurocopter days would be awesome. Puma, Super Puma, 350, 355 ect.....The second video gives a well rounded overview of the helo through modern times.

No problem. I have updated my previous post with script and example, to display both metric and imperial units. EDIT : I've updated again right now my previous post to also include landing in openfield (ouside of any base radius. Note ! : this invisible radius in game is 4kms around airbase center, while in mission editor it is a 2kms black circle).

We need a long "read me" or pdf about config and use this plane. Its a wonderful work but its impossible to enjoy it. In my case I cant fly straight properly and I cant use chaff and flares.

Всем привет! раз все молчат, то добавил небольшое изменение в ККП (чеклисты) включение кислорода. Всем большое спасибо за поддержку и посильную помощь! Я на связи. Найдутся моменты для правки руководства - дайте знать. Постараюсь поддерживать документ актуальным.

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.