Leaderboard

Of course it will! I have decided to make a folded version of it seperated in the Static Objects / Structures Tab to have the ability to put the folded and unfolded Sea King on the Carrier deck or on the Airfield. null I actually plan to make the Sikorsky SH-3G, and a Westland Sea King version, maybe the HC4 as well...

G.91R by by IndiaFoxtEcho.

Still missing: - Pilots [- Torpedos (still not sure if I'll get them to work...)]

Hello, Most games have the ability to enter and exit VR without having to relaunch the game. Hoping ED can add this feature.

I don't understand how the G91R happens to be a novelty, since it was announced in 2021.

Shows I'm not a true aviation nerd, as I've never even heard of the G.91R

Welcome Great first post... https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/faq/refund/ EDIT: Tip for next time; Start with one of the free trial modules to try find out if you're up for the realism

Er ist fertig! Etwas Feinarbeit zur Integration ins Rig ist noch nötig, aber er läuft! Tasterbelegung, Stick und Grip, alles nach Wunsch. Grip ist ein Hybrid von EC 145 und UH 60. FTR (und Beep-Trim über den unteren Coolie, hab ich vergessen zu filmen) über Industrie-Steppermotore. Hammer! Ihr wisst alle, wie überzeugt ich von meinem umgebauten MSFFB2 bin. Aber das ist echt noch mal ein ganz anderes Level. Für Hubschrauber absolut High End!

Your conclusions are based on false assumptions. As I mentioned in another thread, the SME's involved with the DCS: AH-64D have noticed (including me). Further, we've also openly described a lot of these "quirks" on these very same forums ever since release, and have identified them in our own reports to the devs months ago. The BRU was identified for improvement as well (you can even find old posts from myself explaining how it should eventually appear later in development), but it needs to be weighed against other priorities within the project. Coincidentally, yesterday's patch got the BRU reticle closer to how it should be, but the accuracy is still not quite there in how the pattern is projected within the BRU itself. This has been reported internally, but again, it's all about priorities. Can someone use it to boresight their IHADSS? Yes. The appearance of it can be corrected later. The color of the BRU reticle itself isn't necessarily wrong, but it was a game design decision (recommended by the SME team themselves). When the naked eye looks at the BRU reticle, it will appear as it appears in game: yellow-ish in color. When viewed through the lens of the HDU, the BRU reticle will appear pink. The HDU's combiner lens has a color filter on its surface that allows it to reflect certain colors of light (namely the green symbology/FLIR underlay being projected onto it) while allowing the pilot to see through it. This filter is normally not perceived by the pilots as they are using both eyes, but if you are boresighting the IHADSS, the BRU reticle will appear very distinctively pink through the lens. However, since the computer monitor must simulate both eyes within the cockpit, the recommendation was made to not have everything seen by the player appear with the tint color. The same design decision was made when blending both visible lights and FLIR imagery at night, since both eyes are simulated on the computer monitor. So to reiterate, there are a lot of things that the SME team has and continues to comment on, flight model related or otherwise. But just as is the case with other DCS modules, everything cannot be refined or improved at once. Prioritization must be made. But if the assumption is that the members of the SME team are not as knowledgeable or have the same attention to detail as the author of that article, that assumption is wrong. I'm not throwing mud or shade at the author or anyone else; but due to confirmation bias, people will tend to believe the opinions of AH-64 pilots that agree with their own beliefs and observations, and discount any counterpoints to such assessments.

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.

If you have a target underneath your cursor and you enter EXP mode, that target should stay underneath your cursor. Currently when you enter EXP mode, whatever was under your cursor ends up at the dead center of the screen instead. NORM before switching to EXP: After switching to EXP: Expected EXP behaviour:

Hi, Anyone know when the sec check will be fixed? Manual: "Throttle - Snap to MIL and then snap to IDLE when rpm reaches 85 percent. Check for normal indications and smooth operation" When I snap to mil it goes to burner and the engine dies before 85%. Thanks!

Hello guys, here is a quick fix for some of the small issues with the S-300 pack. I'll be working on the various conflicts with the HDSM in the upcoming days as well. Changelog: Corrected typo in 5P85SU display name Corrected type in 5P85DE display name Corrected the 3D model of the Grave Stone Truck Corrected the issue preventing the 5V55RUD from displaying a 3D model Corrected the issue preventing the Mast-mounted Grave Stone (30N6) used on the SA-10B/S-300PS from working Download: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qcpVERQhsK4xHNrFHQsr5SpG6H7n1Bwf/view?usp=sharing

It was intentional. However, not everything makes it into the changelog unfortunately. When you have something as complex as re-factoring of the flight model and such, it can be quite difficult explaining everything that has been done. Maybe a generic "Flight model adjustments/improvements" should have been included, but the individuals responsible for composing and posting these changelogs to the forums are doing so for all DCS modules. This is why all of us use these forums in the first place, so we can ask questions to other community members and some of the staff to seek clarification. This is a separate issue unfortunately. It appears that this is to simulate a "loss of tail rotor effectiveness" (or LTE) effect, specifically as a result of tail rotor vortex ring state. But this is being investigated because it appears to not be working as intended.

I cringe whenever I see someone decry any changes to any aircraft system in DCS as a "nerf", or that a plane, missile, or other system, is "overpowered". DCS is not about "balance". There's no "BR", there's no skill-based match-making. You either are, or are not, good enough. It's a bitter pill to swallow for some people - even me. I suck against a non-AI opponent. DCS attempts to replicate real-world data of aircraft, weapons, and systems, based on actual real-world data provided by the manufacturer, and/or user(s) - THROUGH THE CORRECT CHANNELS. There's no "balance" in reality. A nuclear-capable nation doesn't use nukes because their opponent doesn't have them - they don't use them because it will harm relations with the rest of the world if they did, so such uses must be weighed up vs the fallout of using them. It's not DCS that determines the AIM-120C-7's range, it's real world scientific research. Likewise, the detection range and parameters of EO for Russian jets (early model Russian jets, at that) is dictated by data that is both accessible by ED and comes from verified, or multiple trusted, sources. If changes were made (and I've not read anything about EO changes in the last few patches), they were made based on data provided to them. Much like the AIM-54 Phoenix missile updates, which have arguably made the missile "worse" (or as I like to see it, more in line with what the missile was designed for - engaging high-altitude, long-range bombers at extreme range) - this was based on data and SME feedback regarding missile performance, from what I understand. All I can say is, learn the new system's limitations and adapt - develop new tactics which better support your chosen strategy and apply them. And if your strategy doesn't work: time for a new one.

Close formation flying practice

That would still be amazing to have…from what was said in that article it seems like they are currently working on this and we may have that within a couple years or so…would be a huge leap forward for DCS in my opinion!

Hello, I found the last issue and should provide a new version of the mod during week end at last.

+1. Ran through all of my usual tests, on units that definitely have FLIR textures. It was not fixed at all. Month #6 of unusable FLIR.

Just did some tests in the OpenBeta to confirm that we were seeing the same behavior. In the first image, you can see that with the Yaw axis and pedals centered that there is a little bit of positive pitch in the blades, which would produce thrust toward the right, inducing a left yaw of the nose. On the ground with the collective bottomed out, this would also manifest a slight right lean since the tail rotor is mounted high on the vertical tail, creating a slight rotation around the pivot point at the landing gear tires. In the second image, you can see the pedals are positioned so the right pedal is approximately two inches forward of the left. The tail rotor blades are very close to "flat pitch" where negligible tail rotor thrust would be produced. A good reference point in the Controls Indicator is placing the far left limit of the Yaw channel's SAS white shaded region (yellow arrow) in lined with the vertical red line above it. When in an IGE hover around 5 feet and torque in the mid-70s, I would expect the left pedal to be maybe a half inch to an inch forward of the right pedal (provided there isn't some other extraneous factors affecting this like crosswinds, poor heading control, or other environmental factors). I would be looking for the vertical red line on the Control Indicator to be somewhere along the outside 50% of the right-sided shaded region (indicated by the yellow bracket and yellow line I drew in this picture). So to summarize, this is correct behavior and in-line with how the real aircraft pedals would be positioned. As a side note, whenever the BUCS test is completed during real-life run-ups (it's like the F-16 FLCS test or the F-18 FCS BIT), the BUCS test returns the pedals to centered and even with each other like in the 1st image. Prior to starting the engines, I would always ensure the right pedal was forward of the left pedal as seen in the second image. This would ensure the tail rotor was slicing through the air without making any significant yaw motion as the RPMs increased during run-up.

Mit der Maus könnt ihr die Kamera drehen.

"F-16C - Normandy - Free Flight.miz" is pretty cool too. some spitfires flying around and a bunch of ships. though some are labeled as DD when they all look like liberty ships.

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

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.

Remove helmet - needs 1 toggle binding, and/or 2 Helmet on/Helmet off bindings. Helmet on - hear like in helmet, HMCD works, radio works Helmet off - hear like in helmet disabled, HMCD disabled, slightly reduced contrast or washed out colors or something to simulate the lack of visor, radio muted Bonus points - an animation. Why? I want to hear the engines spool up with canopy open in full glory. But then I have to go to settings and enable "hear like in helmet" if I want to hear people talking on the radio.

Can we have a map for the carribean island nations? How about Jamaica, Haiti, and Dominican Republic? Then we can add the Bahama Islands, Cuba (Cold war), South Florida, and the Bahamas. The maps can be 1960's during the Cuban missle crisis. The redfor and blufor forces would have lots of fun. Mike Force Team

Now this is probably the best attempt I have seen by someone to actually try to help find the necessary data to bring an aircraft they want to DCS. Now you just need to find a third party to take on the project and figure out if any licensing would be required.

https://twitter.com/RAZBAM/status/1573392396284723200

First post is updated with new AP guide version 5.3 which includes changes with Yaw AP in most recent patch. The weapons guide is also recently updated

Thanks for all the info you bring to the forum SD. One thing I would really like to see added to the JTAC feature is the ability to guide Ai aircraft onto target. This would really add to mission building options IMO, and would also help better support player use of CA in ground combat roles. It would also be nice to see CA become more WWII friendly with the addition of a forward observer type role. Views through actual WWII binoculars would also be a plus. But even if the team has been reassigned/disbanded, someone is still clearly working on CA as it has seen numerous updates over the last 10 years. Really appreciate all the input from ED's team on the forums. I think it is one of the things that separates DCS World from most other platforms. The community here might not always like the response it gets, but there is usually a response on most issues. So thanks. I would just like to add that vehicle control in DCS CA is on par with most dedicated platforms, and even better than some. Even with all its current issues, I think CA gets the short end of the stick more than it should and hope ED can find a way to continue its regular updates.

Would be handy when you want to create a mission in pancake, then fly it in vr

Most mid-range and 3 Generation Old Cards will likely see performance increases. because there's 2 bottlenecks, caused by 1 piece of hardware that will be fixed with the Multi-Core and Vulkan combo. I've posted the same thing in dozens of threads, but there's is likely what you are experiencing, and what will change with those 2 major updates. Vulkan Removes the DX11 API CPU Overhead, the more objects in a scene, the more the DX11 API Gets bogged down waiting for a single CPU Thread to process all the draw calls. Symptoms: As object count grows, GPU Usage and FPS Drop, as a result of the GPU having to Wait for the CPU Thread to process all the draw and GPU commands in the DX11 API Before sending them to the GPU. DirectX technically runs 5 threads w/ DCS, 1 Thread is part of the DCS.exe, the other 4 are DX11 API and Driver Threads, but DX11 doesnt actually use all 5 threads at the same time, as many DX11 API Commands and functions are not able to be processed asynchronously, Sure MS Says DX11_1's command layer is multi-threaded, but the base functions of DirectX11_x are not able to be multi-threaded very well due to the core of DX11 and how it was designed. Result of Move to Vulkan: GPU instructions go directly to the GPU and are processed asynchronously by the GPU, allowing the GPU to stay fully utilized in complex scenes, resulting in higher and more stable utilization and frames per second, Vulkan itself allows for modular integration of Features as well (ie DLSS, FSR, The Long Dev Time: Writing a Graphics Engine from Scratch isnt easy, most developers license a prebuilt engine and integrate their content into it, the larger Developers spend up to 10 years developing engines behind the scenes. and releasing it to be licensed ie. Unreal, Unity etc. Multi-Core Having the DCS Sim Process on a Single thread, forces 1 thread to process everything, this leads to other items waiting for other processes to finish, the larger missions will exhibit the CPU thread having large overhead as AI Functions (Pathing, Solving for every moving object), Physics (Object Trajectories, Interactions), Flight Models, DirectX Command Layer, Weather/Environment, Track Recording, Sensors (Radars, RWRs, IFR, etc etc, of every unit, Aircraft, Ground, weapon). Network (Packets, Connection, Pings), UI Elements, User Input Commands etc. Symptoms: In Large missions with significant units, the DCS.exe Process can get bogged down with all the AI, Sensor, and Physics data alone, Moving to MP, you now have to do all that, and have to sync Player Units, and process incoming and outgoing network packets. Audio and Subtitles can be out of sync with the action, AI movements can be out of sync with the action, Tracks will playback with inputs and movements out of sync or completely fubar'd etc etc. Result of the Multi-Threading, Most of the items will be processed asynchronously, allowing everything to process quicker and more efficiently without having to wait for another to finish. The Long Dev Time: DCS had already started being re-written for Multiple Threads, the Sounds Processing was moved to it's own thread long ago, dividing a large simulation into multiple threads takes time and patience, as they must be divided, written and properly synced. I know everyone is tired of hearing patience, But they are both coming, as stated earlier, elements are in internal testing. There are no distractions/divergent projects, the teams working on the core are working on the core, Modules, Aircraft etc are all being worked on by separate teams.

IFE mentioned this for quite sometime. As the "flash sale" ends on 2nd Oct, I would expect the MB-339 available some time afterwards. Okay, MiG-21, here I come.

Gina looking good! But not a complete surprise after some of IFE's MB-339 videos.

We'll have a Block I Rhino long before getting the Growler. If ED ever gets close-to-life EW in the DCS, I'd rather see the EA-6B to be honest.

I swear I'm the only one who doesn't like 1st person bodies. Are they great for immersion? yes. They also block the view of switches I'm trying to hit.

Yep, with small steps textures and mesh can be updated with time. Anything is better than uniform flat land stretching out of nowhere to the end of the world.

Hi, i noticed something strange and dont know if its correct in this way. Situation: left MFD = FCR , right MFD = HSD in DCPL-mode , steerpoint 1 in front of me and steerpoint 2 behind me 1. FCR in A-A, specific mode or steerpoint doesnt matter: Radar-range at 160, HSD on 15. Every time i switch the SOI between the mfds (by using DMS-down), the HSD-range goes step by step up to 120 (15 -30 -60 -120). HSD is not in CPL-mode! When i change the radar-range back to 5 and repeat the procedure, the HSD doesnt reduce its range. 2. FCR in A-G (GM-mode), range doesnt matter, Steerpoint 1 in front of me and steerpoint 2 behind me: HSD-range at 15, activ steerpoint 1 in 65 miles (north) in front of me. Switching the SOI by using DMS-down, the range goes step by step (15 -30 -60) up to 60 miles, until the waypoint is in sight. Switching to waypoint 2 (65 miles (south) behind me). When the waypoint ist not visible on the HSD, the range goes down to 15 (step by step). When the waypoint is in sight, nothing happens. If i change the direction of flight from north to south, the same happens, only vice versa. Is there any reason for this? Thx and greetings

JP-233 was a British thing and not used by the Germans. Germans had MW-1 instead. The weapon loadout for a German 1989 Tornado IDS should look something like this: - Mauser BK-27 - AIM-9L Sidewinder - Mk-80 series - BL755 - MW-1 - AS.34 Kormoran - AGM-88 Unfortunately there is no other place on this forum to discuss the Tornado atm, as the AviaStorm/Tornado subforum is closed @BIGNEWY

I wonder how big the difference would have been at 4k or VR with MSAA4. I will wait for those tests with DCS.

That's not how it used to work at all, it never needed a restart to use ALT+ENTER, I use it constantly, to force a restart where before it worked just fine is rather silly of them, and I have noticed a performance hit since the latest patch which makes sense now if the app is in windowed mode constantly.

I want to thank you for the really accurate and detailed answer! So it's an intended change. All right, then I'll probably have to relearn my muscle memory. You are doing a great job, keep it up! I do have one small note though: You guys really need to write things like this in the patch notes, PLEASE! Otherwise (We) always think it must be a bug.

This looks like it's tail rotor VRS. Some new lines of code relating to tail rotor VRS have been added to the flight model config.lua. If you set the tail rotor VRS effect to zero in this file the observed behaviour goes away.

The JDAMs are just not implemented correctly. There should be 2 LARs, one for a LOFT and one for a level release. This is what the JDAM DLZ should look like

Germany had great looking Phantoms.

One further thing I want to be clear on. The author of the article, who I have met, is a good person and a solid professional. My critiques of his review are because I disagree with some of his assessments of the DCS: AH-64D and the context that they were presented, not because I don't respect him or his experience.

same for me. instantly goes to STT upon promoting a target manually. this makes TWS unuseable. hope for a hotfix for that stuff. TWS_direct_STT.trk

Reflected Simulator new campaign. Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

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.

DCS: Kfir by AVIRON Introduction to the Lion Cub The Kfir is a single engine, single seat multirole, all-weather combat aircraft based on the Nesher Mirage 5 aircraft. but it is powered by the GE-J79E engine. To accommodate the engine, extensive changes to the fuselage, cooling, wing, and canards were required to retain its excellent performance. It was given the designation KFIR (Lion Cub in Hebrew). The Kfir received various upgrades and special modifications throughout its service. The Kfir entered Israeli Air Force service in the mid 70’s, and it was used until the late 90’s. It took part in the 1982 Peace for Galilee Lebanon where it carried out unescorted strike missions and received credit for shooting down a MiG-21 in a mixed-dogfight with F-15As. An early version of the Kfir without the modified wing and canards (Kfir-C1) was leased to the US Navy and Marine Corps with the designation F-21A. It was used as an aggressor in various locations. The Kfir was also exported to Ecuador, Colombia, and Sri Lanka, and it is actively in use by the private US Aggressor company, ATAC. Aviron aims to bring the Kfir to DCS in the most realistic fashion possible. The DCS Kfir will simulate the external and internal systems and state-of-the-art flight dynamics based on aerodynamic research, CFD modeling, and wind tunnel data.