Leaderboard

В англоязычной части форума уже некоторое время обсуждается идея разделения модулей и их дефолтных ливрей. Чтобы люди могли скачать только саму модель, а дополнительные скины для нее загружать-удалять по мере необходимости через менеджер модулей. Или выборочно для каждого модуля, или единым паком "Дополнительные ливреи". Вопрос возник в свете того, что сейчас абсолютно каждому юзеру ДКС "навязывают" около 42 гигабайт ливрей. Не интересен Томкэт? Все равно скачай 12 гигабайт скинов. Не летаешь на Апаче? А 10 гигабайт ливрей поставь. Пофигу на поршни? Держи еще несколько гигов. И так далее. Дальше, разумеется, ситуация будет только ухудшаться, т.к. модулей меньше не становится. Что думают по этому поводу разработчики?

This is a task we hope to start soon for both AAR and ALE-50. Thanks.

Hi all please be patient as we have some more tweaks to come. thank you

Haha, der war gut! Wenn ich alle Vögel, die im Hangar stehen auch ausführen wollte, müsste ich erstmal Rente beantragen..... Seien wir mal ehrlich, DCD ist auch eine Art Sammelleidenschaft.

Wags is very busy, when he has time and we have something to share you will see a video. thanks

Ok, everyday is a school day. Select disperse under fire in the advance waypoint actions - options Untick the box for disperse under fire, the units will continue on the route regardless of engagement

No one is missing that. It's just the realm of modern warfare. You may prefer to stay with gunfighters and dumb bombing but let the users decide what they want. It's almost insulting to the modern pilots that they are not manly enough in your opinion, yet someone has to flight the new toys to defend and win a real conflict.

Nothing has to be on the store, really nothing should be on the store. The fix is more about adding options than anything else. The list of liveries should only appear in the module manager when downloading. For a given aircraft choose if you want only the default skin, all, or a custom list from what's available.

@snocc_silly goose, you're going to make these guys really upset when the F1M comes out lmao

I think people are missing a much much simpler picture for why the Super Hornet is not a good module for ED to develop: more modern airframes have far more complex avionics systems that eases pilot tasking. Essentially, ED would be spending a lot more time to develop complex avionics for a module we spent less time learning because it almost entirely flies itself. I may be overextending in that the Super Hornet / Rhino / whatever isn't that automated, but if the E variant is not able to fly missions that the C variant can't touch, then the extra time simply isn't worth it. Yes, players will feel a bit cooler "oh wow, I get the latest and greatest Hornet!" but actual gameplay will actually be more dull and less skill based. Last thing I can think of, if some of the extra capabilities are aircraft to aircraft related, the support from other aircraft may simply not be in DCS world to really allow, or it may make the redfor vs blufor aspect too imbalanced.

Better infantry is a great idea and you know we have been working on models, first person is something I would like to see personally, but we have no news to share currently.

https://discord.com/channels/536389125276827660/544224332709232660/1023511557235294239 RAZBAM_Specter — Today at 11:29 Early morning Flights from the new airfields Santa Cruz and Comandante Luis Piedrabuena Airfields which will be in the next update

Dear ED, Before my summer holidays I have said that I have some ideas to make ED experience better for everyone but I had to evaluate them and will share them when ready. The major focus point of my critics was lack of LOD models in game assets both for some core mods and AI assets.I see that this is moving to the right direction and still expecting LOD models for the rest of the assets and also I’m looking forward to seeing the final LOD levels for Apache and Viper. Current provided LOD1 and LOD2 models reduce CPU load 75% per asset but textures are still inherited from the main model and they still occupy a large portion in video memory. I’m sure that final lod levels will cap it and bring it to the level of Tomcat, KA-50 or Hornet. Last month I was mostly focused on small additions or tweaks which will impact performance and visual fidelity with minimal impact. So any interventions which require remodeling, or recording were out of the question. Also I have waited enough so that I personally and as many of hoggit users can test one of the basic solutions that I’m going to suggest now to implement. Your team can implement any of them pretty easily without tinkering the main code requiring internal testing. Here we go. Easiest first. 1- Separate cockpit textures from object textures and provide same level of quality settings for them: Proposal: New setting in control panel: Object textures: High, Medium, Low Cockpit textures: High, Medium, Low Terrain textures: High, Low. By allowing us to keep cockpit textures separated we can keep it at higher levels together with terrain textures and reduce object textures which mostly covers external models. Those models do not require the same texel density as cockpit and terrain textures since they are rarely seen closer than 30m. This will allow fluent cpu frametimes and relax cpu memory controller tasks and allow especially VR users with 8GB gpu’s to enjoy the best visual quality in game. Cockpit textures are already separated in the game install; they are only under the mods folder. You do not need to manually tag them even. Please make this setting available for us. 2- Precaching function in graphics.lua: (actually this is easier than the other one but probably need internal discussion) Proposal: revise and ,if not necessary, remove. Precaching function given in graphics.lua (see below) apparently remains unchanged since the Lock-on game configuration files. Precaching = { around_camera = 50000; around_objects = 10000; around_types = {"world", "point"}; preload_types = {"map", "world", "mission"}; } Many people in reddit dcs related forums, followed my advice to set both parameters to 0. Which lowered their ram and even Vram usage drastically and provided more resources to be available in their system for multiplayer and VR. I personally removed the full statement from the lua file and it has the same effect as setting the parameters to 0. It has been like that in my system for at least 5 months now. Since this is a sitting sim and max speed in game is almost limited by reality and we have huge game assets but still enough bandwidth for on time delivery to render pipeline: can you reconsider this setting and remove it if it is not necessary. It happens to not break anything in game but looks like it is the problem. Thanks and, Kindest regards, The LOD’s guy PS: I'm going to post a lighter version with some more explanation in hoggit sub on reddit. You are welcome to read that too.

and heres another video @IronMike I like making flanker videos not Phoenix ones.. despite all the views lol -- but the missiles are going backwards now. it looks like the control surfaces get jammed. same thing is happening on the AIM120 as well.. it does crazy 180s and 360s since the update last week .. pretty please roll it back to Pre September 2nd.. (pretty please)

но это не значит, что всё вернется как было!))) изменения динамики непременно будут!))

The reason the wings are always in oversweep, no matter starting choice, is a state limitation in DCS. If the wings were designated unswept for hot starts, they would be unswept no matter the location. Including the tight spacing of carrier decks. Further, procedurally the F-14 would not be unswept until turning the corner onto the runway at the earliest, or lined up at the latest. Thus, this is the correct process and way to start for takeoff.

Nachdem es ja leider im Gegensatz zu vielen RennSims keine schöne 3D Hangar-Szenerie gibt, in der man seine Sammlung einfach nur bewundern kann, muss man leider immer erst nen Flug starten ... Finde auch, dass DCS da ein echtes Defizit hat

As for the flaps, if you have asymmetrical flaps extended it’s likely you’ve oversped them. Raise them before you hit 225 knots.

It's already on but it's not the same as in ED shop.

I have reported this to the team thank you for your report.

Auf die BO-105 freue ich mich auch sehr. Ich bete, dass sie das Flight Model hinbekommen! Das ist ein kleiner, sehr agiler Heli - daher habe ich ein bisschen Angst vor einem "Gazelle"-Gefühl! Abwarten und das Beste hoffen!

if you select disperse under fire and tick the box they will stay dispersed for the time you have selected then continue. Just bare in mind if the engagement continues they will hold. if you want them to continue even after being engaged untick the disperse under fire box, they will then continue moving.

Correct. Only thing that is not right per se in your statement is putting "force" on pedals. Heading hold is not default flight mode (as in, you usualy keep your feet on pedals). Pedals ( foot plate, not rudder pedals as a whole) pivot around a point that is on bottom of foot plate and microswitches are under foot plate. Pedals are mounted at such angle that by just placing your feet on pedals you will depress foot plates and activate switches. Now, I don't know if both microswitches have to be activated to get out of heading hold mode or just either one is enough. Also, it doesn't dampen inputs (that's what pedal dampener is for), it dampens movement. What is the difference? You fly and turbulence kicks your tail (happens more than you think), yaw AP will take care of it for you. Tail wagging is called fish-tailing and can induce nausea real quick. Every airliner has yaw damper on as soon as it leaves the ground.

Since the subject is raised every 2 weeks I'll make it short. I'm all in for DCS FPS but a simplified one as part of CA module. Take the ejected pilot animation and movement as base, add running (depending on load), add one weapon (no crosshair!), add pointed weapon option FPS view for accurate shooting, add crouch and lie down moves, add embark/disembark option (but not into a tank!) interacting with landed heli or a truck/humvee/IFV/APC. That should be it. If you want other weapon or get into a tank just change unit/slot. That makes it a fun option for anybody that wants to try and stay within possibilities and quality of CA, without breaking the bank or long dev time. Some JTAC options would be nice too. No Rambo style, please, where you run into a choppa and fly it by yourself or get into a tank and play as commander. Full fidelity FPS does not make sense (either by ED or 3rd party) until the maps are super detailed at ground level, AI infantry is really smart, team aware and infantry have detailed "DM".

Скины не удаляются, они в папках у ботов.

Меня все не покидает вопрос - в чем смысл делать всё поверх какого-то "глобального океана"? Возможно в DCS это действительно так(вроде приводили примеры влияния настройки качествы воды на FPS в местах где ее совсем нет), но какого-то рационального объяснения этому решению мне в голову не приходит.

it can be difficult to keep targets moving once engaged. I will ask the team

That's been asked about and apparently they don't want to do that, having livery packs as "DLC" that 3rd Party devs can offer up. I guess they don't want to jam up the ED Store with livery packs or something, but IMO that makes a lot of sense versus having to install 3rd party livery DL/management tools of some kind. The problem right now is we're caught between those screaming about HDD space, those screaming about more MODEX and dynamic MODEX, and those screaming about non-historical skins, while yet others share passion in wanting more cohesive offerings of skins to wings, cruises, and ships. Can't make everyone happy, but at least right now SSDs are cheap. The existing 1988 Tomcats from VF-31 and VF-11 for example will be great for Kola because that cruise was exactly there, doing TEAM WORK '88 and practicing flying from Fjords and launching strikes and intercepts. But, we'd still need to get a few more in there unless we get more going on the dynamic MODEX front. Adding Saratoga would mean needing to add some VF-74 and 103 in, plus adding to the A+ skins. Same with Ranger and Indi, plus A-6E skins for the AI jets across each. And of course trying to fill out the Supercarriers with cruises that fit the Tomcat and the regions we have in DCS, which finding photos for have proven a huge PITA.

THIS. I've been playing this sim for years. Everything on the ground just literally stands there, waiting to be shot. This sim has the worst AI of any game I have ever played. In my opinion, AI should be the next thing that is HEAVILY upgraded.

+1 Here's is the sad part folks...... Original request is now 2 years old - and they haven't managed to figure out how to put wheel chocks in for the A10.......... Mind boggling stuff isn't it...... smh https://forum.dcs.world/topic/245029-wheel-chocks/

Ay! The mod became incompatible with one of the patches to the map. I need to redo it once i find some time.

Also, DLSS 3. 0 Inserts fake frames (so that 100% FPS Increase is about 20%, and 80% Filler). Higher FPS, but also Higher Frame Latency. This has already been proven, both by nVidia Spec sheets and Driver breakdowns. Also, DLSS 3.0 does not work in VR. So for the crowd begging ED to include DLSS 3.0 for DCS VR Performance or even 2D Performance, this is 1 Reason why you should not jump on a bandwagon after the first shiny trailer is released.

All the 1st person I want is to be able to bail out of my Mustang over occupied France and score some local beauties with my swag bag full of gifts of chocolates and silk underthingies. Live out the war by a quiet river with Giselle, Marise, and Suzanne.

I believe the long-term goal with DCS (Digital Combat Simulator) has always been to fully realize the decades-old dream of a "digital battlefield". A digital battlefield includes infantry. I don't see why in the future, when technology will be more advanced, Combined Arms couldn't evolve into an ARMA-type module (on a much larger scale). It will just take a while (a loooong, looooooooong while ). Think "continental drift" as a yardstick. What I do see as feasible near-term would be "pilot legs" and enhanced player-JTAC integration. ED could do that with the current engine. It would be highly immersive to be able to walk/ drive to or from the jet, do a walkaround, climb in and out of the pit. Or be able to move around on a hilltop to call in CAS in multiplayer. My near-term ultimate dream scenario would be to be able to attend a briefing in the (upcoming?) Supercarrier's Ready Room, suit up, walk onto the flight deck and get into the jet. In VR! All of this could be done with the current engine and custom movement controls for the avatar; creating the necessary Carrier interiors would be the most complex issue, I suppose.

Keep in mind that Swift's claims about the control system are assumptions, nothing more, despite stating them as if they were facts. Not everything in the code is open to users to view or edit.

Hi Virgo47 & all, I have just finished testing a proof-of-concept to include DCS-COINS support for TP sliders. The results are encouraging. Currently by default, all aircraft "Control Knob" parameters are disabled. I will be enabling all these as slider controls for AH-64D, AV8BNA, F-14, F-16C, F-5E, F-86F and F/A-18C, and Mig-19P in the next DCS-COINS release (version 3). Others with the "Intensity" settings will be identified (will need your help) and included as well. Stay tuned here.

Если не будет постов акустиков, то не интересно.

This is normal. The UFC on the Hornet only has 9 cells in the scratchpad window (2 alpha-numeric cells followed by 7 numerical cells). On a 10-digit MGRS, there's not enough room, so the second and third digit are squished together on the second cell.

Hi CARTOK, Many of the generic option set for a aircraft parameter eg. "OffOn" were programmatically derived based on my experience with some of those aircraft that I was spending time with (setting up for TP pages). And unfortunately, it's not correct for all - as you have pointed out, regarding the Flap setting. There are a few coders for the DCS-BIOS lua files and not all are following the same standard in defining the names, descriptions, values, sequence, and etc in their work - and that broke my logic for a correct interpretation to a meaningful name for some modules. I don't have the A-10C and many other aircraft modules - and also the time to test out/map the values of those that I have, to user-friendly names. I have done so for the F-18C and partially for a handful. I will take your input here to fix the Flaps Setting in the next DCS-COINS release. If you have identified more, please let me know so that I can include them as well. Regarding your issue of no messages triggered for certain actions, I can only speculate that it may be due to a bug in the Lua code for the A-10C in DCS-BIOS. I am planning the next DCS-COINS release with the latest DCS-BIOS pack, and along with updated TP API library. Expect it to be available within a week. Hopefully, this will solve some if not all of the issues you and the others are facing. I will announce it here when it's done. Cheers!

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).

It's been a while since JHMCS implementation I think it's about time I requested on this one before its going out of EA. Heavily appreciated if I could get a response from ED members about this feature.

Thanks .. I had already purchased some Campaigns at ED's shop, but the current exchange rate makes Steam slightly cheaper, and also the Operation Sandworm Campaign was discounted at Steam but not at ED's, so thanks a lot for the heads up

Hmmm...I feel like something happened on the last Wednesday patch, either with the AI or the guidance, that has severely hampered TWS/long range shots (60-70 miles). Since the motor update patch, my Pk was around 50% for those shots vs AI...not great, but not terrible either. However, since the last patch last week, I have fired upwards of 40 missiles (A's and C's) in TWS from ~60 miles, and I've got maybe 3 hits. The missiles are getting to the targets, but they seem to get confused by even minimal maneuvers by easy level AI and I've seen near miss after near miss. Is anyone else experiencing this? FWIW, active/ACM-cover up shots at short range seem to be working fine.

помогает игровая команда "Сброс триммера" [LCtrl+T] Она выполняет синхронизацию положения педалей в 3Д-кабине с педалями под столом игрока

Not at all. An IFF interrogator is a radar itself (called secondary radar, basically what ATCs use) and will generate contacts that can be then combined through MSI with radar contacts to generate tracks and their related HAFUs. As was discussed extensively before, IFF should be not only a contributor to the MSI picture, but actually a full-on sensor in itself. That's why you can steer and define IFF scan ranges on the AZ/EL page.

Ironically the f4u was relegated to ground based missions for quite a while due to problems with visibility for landing on a carrier. It took a new approach method, that's the Brits developed, for it to be on a carrier.