Leaderboard

DCS: AH-64D Mini-Update Following some time off, I’d like to update you on current AH-64D tasks and priority tasks following those. Current tasks include: Yaw SAS behavior. Improving Vortex Ring State characteristics. Complete Image Auto-Tracking (IAT) and Multi-Target Tracking (MTT) for the TADS. Complete the Performance (PERF) page. Complete the new Pilot and CP/G models 1st person view. Improved Datalink Modem (IDM) that will include LB Net and the ability to share targeting between AH-64Ds. Additional crew radio messages. Additional external model Levels of Detail (LOD) for improved performance. Continued “George” improvements. "Robbie" fuel tank option. Following the above, priority items include: The Fire Control Radar (FCR) and AGM-114L radar-guided Hellfire. SAS collective channel behavior. Radar altitude hold and altitude hold stability when outside ground effect. Adjust SAS/saturation tones. Uncommanded pitch and roll behavior in some conditions. Please note that the above list is not 100% inclusive, but rather the most important highlights. Kind regards, Wags

DCS: F-16C Viper Mini-Update Following some time off, I’d like to update you on current Viper tasks and priority tasks following those. Current tasks include: Complete external model Level of Detail (LOD) to improve performance. We are now close to completing the High Drag and Low Drag ballistics and calculations for both CCIP and delayed-CCIP releases for the MK-84HD. This should also improve other general-purpose bombs. The Low Altitude Drogue Delivery (LADD) is being finalized and tested. Correcting some HOTAS short and long press logic. This is also true for jettisons. GPS target coordinate shifting. Radar SAM and DTT modes tracking retention improvement. Adjustments to SPOTLIGHT mode for short press. Adjustments to Track While Scan (TWS) designations. Animated ECS inlets. Following the above, priority items include: Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR) Tuning air-to-air performance including look-down and search to bug target delay. Digital Maneuver Cue (DMC) and Loft indications. Further work on Link 16 and adding air-to-air target assignments. Alternate gear handle and animated tail hook. Please note that this is not a 100% inclusive list, but rather the more important highlights. Kind regards, Wags

DCS: F/A-18C Hornet Mini-Update Following some time off, I’d like to update you on current Hornet tasks and priority tasks following those. Current tasks include: Following the substantial update to the Viper flight model and FLCS, the team is now focused on the Hornet flight model and FCS. In parallel, important changes are being made to the landing gear and how it behaves at touchdown / touch and goes. This is the primary Hornet task. Correcting AGM-84D, AGM-84E, and SLAM-ER behavior. GPS-weapon using TOO engagement behavior. Incorrect Velocity Vector confinement error. New and improved pilot model. Following the above, priority items include: In parallel with the Viper, tuning air-to-air performance including look-down and search to bug target delay. UFC BU page. Please note that this is not a 100% inclusive list, but rather the more important highlights. Kind regards, Wags

Greetings, Would it be possible for you to update the weapons labels for the F-14s to the new DCS standard? I don't think it would be challenging to implement, but I think many would appreciate this change. I have attached the picture to specify exactly what I mean. Thank you so much! Kind regards

I thought I'd show some love to our brothers across the pond and put this aircraft up for consideration. We are getting another Middle Eastern Map (Sinai) and I am sure sometime in the future we'll get a proper Gulf War Iraq map. Let me propose this aircraft to the pilots in here. SEPECAT JAGUAR GR1

We have more information and we will be adjusting based on the data we have. thank you

FAQ Note: This FAQ is very much subject to change, and nothing should be construed as a "promise". This the current intention as of 27 September 2022. Who is developing this map? OnReTech was formed in October 2021 to develop terrains. With more than seven years of experience creating terrains for flight simulators, including DCS, we have assembled a team of dedicated artists, engineers, researchers, and managers to create new and interesting battlefields for DCS World. Why Sinai? The Sinai map is of great historical importance that includes several past conflicts. The map will include different types of surfaces, large and small rivers, forests, fields, and mountains. Large and small cities, many military airfields, road and rail networks, ports will also be included. Despite large portions of desert, the map will also include greenery and forests along the Nile Delta and in Israel. What does the Sinai roadmap include? The project is divided into three phases in total. Early access: first + second phase. Map update: bonus phase with expansion of the detailed territory with 3-4 additional airfields (it's a secret for now; we're still considering which ones). Final release: third phase First phase This will Include a 1500 x 1000 km area. Of this, a 700 by 700 km will be created in high detail and accuracy. Phase 1 will include many large and small cities like Cairo and include landmarks like the pyramids of Giza. Both natural and manmade features will be included. Airfields of the first phase: Egypt: Al Ismailiyah Air Base Faid Kibrit Air Base Abu Sultan Abu Suwayr As Salihiyah Bir Jifjafa/Malez Wadi al Jandali Israel: Nevatim Airbase Hatzerim Airbase Ramon Airbase Uvda/Ovda Second phase. Additional unique objects and scenery for Israel and Egypt will be added. Airfields of the second phase: Egypt: Al Mansurah Az Zaqaziq Inshas Airbase Cairo International Airport Cairo West (Almaza) Bilbeis Air Base Israel: Sde Dov Airport Palmachim Airbase Hatzor Tel Nof Ben Gurion Third phase. Airfields of the third phase: Egypt: Quwaysina Birma/Tanta Air Base Al Rahmaniyah Borg-el-Arab/Intl Jiyanklis New Gebel el Basur Al Khatatbah Kom Awshim Beni Suef Wadi Abu Rish El Minya Hurghada Wadi Abu Shihat When will this map be available? We are planning an early access release in the first quarter of 2023. This is subject to change. How much will this map cost? Base price - $49.99 USD Early access - $39.99 USD What period is this map based on? The map is being designed to represent the 2000s to the present.

Just a small update, celebrating breaking the 25% barrier with 160/600 pages done, still work-in-progress of course: See the document here!

I must announce my upcoming announcement of my announcement during another companies press conference announcement

You can choose to just not buy Early Access modules. They are not supposed to be a finished product. It's a work in progress at every point before the full release and even after that dcs core additions and new api's may enable some additional features in the future. With the new two weeks trial you can even evaluate yourself if the simulation accuracy is to your liking or not - for free. I don't think there is any bad in developers releasing early builds to support their work on the modules. If you think your time investment deserves a more final version you will have to be patient and wait for full release.

If it’s true to the original, it’s going to require one heck of a runway length - or rely on earth curvature to get airborne

DCS: Tornado wallpapers: https://aviastorm.com/wallpapers.html

Very cool the resolution of the mountains. This is the weakest point on any map. I became interested in the Sinai map.

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.

Mit der Maus könnt ihr die Kamera drehen.

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.

@prestonflying Hopefully they will come to their senses. Thanks for making it happen! Cheers, Dos I just looked on the winwing website and the UFC DDI combos are beginning to sell Oct 8th!

So far, my accurate Caucasus map is available in: CombatFlite (comes with the software) Tacview (comes with the software) DCS User Files as a GeoTIFF (use in Photoshop or GIMP or QGIS) The kneeboard/ME mod is not there yet, but I'm working on it.

I still don't know which terrain to do next, but Syria will be done someday, that's for sure.

Maybe I'll add a few Westland Sea King skins to my Sikorsky Sea King, but I will model the Westland Sea King later on as well.

Isn't the whole reason the radome is mounted atop the mast is so you can hover behind cover with just the radar exposed and see what's out there? At least that's how they sold it in the brochure. Each method of engagement has its time and place, you just have to know when to use them. You do not what to come to a dead stop and hover directly over the target area, unless you are going to attempt a Death Blossom.

Version 1.1.6 - 20220929 Maintenance Release Two busy weeks, filled with small updates. Many modules have received minor touch-ups (mostly QoL improvements, some have enhanced capabilities, e.g. PlayerScore's new 'Feats'), and broadening support for persistence, so this version is chock-full of small changes. Two new modules make their first appearance, but they are both still undergoing testing and have no documentation, so try to overlook them for now. I'll hopefully get around to properly introducing them in one of the next updates. Changes Documentation - Manual (updates to existing modules) - Quick ref (updates to existing modules) Demos - Radio Go Go - update to correct a small bug in radio trigger Modules - autoCSAR 1.0.0 beta - initial version, not yet ready for release - ArtilleryZones 2.2.2 - API for FireAt() - Helo Troops 2.3.0 - Integration with PlayerScore and OwnedZones. Awards a feat to any player who successfully drops infantry into an enemy-owned zone - cfxMX 1.2.4 - playerUnit2Group cross index (new) - OwnedZones 1.2.2 - redCap! and blueCap! outputs (new) - PlayerScore 1.5.1 - added 'Feats' in addition to 'Kills' per player - Feats API - Recon Mode 2.1.3 - minor bug fix - cfxZones 2.8.7 - small bugfix in QoL warning - expanded isPointInsideZone() API - CSARManager 2.2.0 - integration with PlayerScore: feat upon successfully rescuing a pilot - optional actionSound - ability to score individual CSAR missions - API: new isCSARTarget() - dcsCommon 2.7.5 - new bitAND() - new LSR() - new num2bin - fireFX 1.1.0 - persistence - limitedAirframes 1.5.2 - integration with autoCSAR to avoid possible CSAR mission creation conflicts - LZ 1.1.0 - persistence - messenger 2.0.1 - small bugfix on configuration - pulseFlags 1.3.1 - corrected typos - radioTrigger 1.0.1 - small bug corrected on rtOut! - williePete 1.0.0 beta - initial version, not ready for release Enjoy, -ch

That R-37 didnt become an actually operational missile until nearly 2020, its also not in DCS. Just cause they tested something in 1993 does not mean they managed to make it work in 1993. Until very recently the R-37 was in the same boat as the AIM-152, nice test missile that just never got off the ground. I think you will also find that the R-33 is not much more of a threat in DCS than the R-27 series missile. It used to have ridiculous energy retention and speed (maintaining mach 4 over a 60 mile straight line shot) much like the original LOMAC AIM-54 until sometime last year when ED made it obey the laws of physics again. Now it has nowhere near the range or capability of the AIM-54A or C for that matter.SARH only to boot.

That contrast has left me pondering what was even the point in upgrading the Phoenix instead of adopting the AIM-120, given that the AMRAAM was just around the corner and the C-model seems nothing but an expensive paper tiger in that context. Apologies for this bitter tone, I can’t help but to feel disappointed that the 1000 pounds of Cold War nostalgia called the Phoenix was far from being a weapon that in any way complimented the finest member of the prestigious Tomcat lineage, the F-14D. Then again, it was just a stopgap measure until the AIM-152 so understandably there was no reason to upgrade it very far. With the awesome APG-71 and the passive tracking and targeting capabilities provided by the IRST, the F-14D should have been the king of BVR right until the F-22 came to claim that throne in 2005. Instead it ended up being the only teen-series fighter forced to carry obsolete junk while everyone else got to frolic around with their brand spanking new AMRAAMs. But the Cold War was over and that meant so was the Tomcat. Adding insult to injury, the Russians developed their R-33 Phoenix-clone into a truly hypersonic ultra long range missile, scoring a hit at 300km in 1994 test. I'll try to get over my frustration somehow

A, B, C1-4 use the original rocket motor. C5 to some version of D use a different all-boost rocket motor, and there's been no news that I recall that it has been changed since. All other performance relates to electronics, guidance, target detection, ECM rejection etc.

Try zooming with the MFD buttons. I mapped these on the HOTAS as I prefer the linear feel more than the zoom commands.

Hi, Just a note to inform that I added a 4th mission to this set, my first for Weapons training: Next will be very similar missions for Rockets and Bombs, I edited them to not only teach each weapons procedure, but also to serve as practice missions, to improve one's markmanship

will respond to this on P-8 thread to keep this thread on topic

Maple Bugs

I don't mean this to sound rude, but can the team just apply a basic human logic? Imagine the following: - Pilot receives coordinates in the vicinity of a target, creates waypoint, and presses WPDSG. - He hawks the area for some time, trying to discern a specific vehicle, or waiting for it to make a move. - Once finally cleared to engage, he tries to move the crosshair over the target, but WPDSG prevents him from doing so. - Human error, happens to the best of us, no biggie, right? He immediately presses TDC to correct that, and then the cursor starts to drift. While he tries to correct this, the moment's gone, and so is the target. I cannot think of a single scenario where such behavior could be of any use. Especially considering that this "feature" is not annunciated by any symbology, and the crosshair still implies that the pod is stabilized in the INR mode. And if neither the team or users possess documentation that explicitly confirms this behavior, I would rather go with implementation that makes logical sense, instead of something that looks like a bug.

Оставлю здесь, может кому интересно будет.

IRL the primary percentage threats the F-14A/B faced were the Mig-21, Mig-23, Mig-25, Mirage F1 and to a limited degree early variants of the Mig-29 and Su-27. Comparing the AIM-54 to the R-77 is not really a historical comparison. While the R-77 was developed in the 1980s/90s, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union it didn't enter service in any meaningful numbers until the mid-2000s. Through the 1980s the majority of Soviet fighters would be the Mig-21/23. Compared to the R-23 the AIM-54C offers a massive range advantage likewise against the R-27. The AIM-54 was retired in 2004 and the Tomcat in 2006. Also keep in the mind RWR performance (particularly of GEN III and early GEN IV REDFOR) does not match the historical record from the Iran/Iraq war. Many of the AIM-54A kills made by Iranian Tomcats were against targets that were unaware they were under attack and took no evasive maneuvers, whereas in DCS every AI fighter will have a perfect knowledge of an inbound missile and will evade into a perfect notch or defense within a second of the missile going active. This behavior has a huge impact of DCS missiles percentage kill leading to conclusions that the missile is performance is worse than reality (within the limits of what we know in the open source).

The only Redfor Active Radar Missile AAM's in DCS are the R-77 and the SD-10. The SD-10 is an AMRAAM contemporary that IOC'd in like 2010 or whenever the JF-17 IOC'd (AFTER the F-14 and the AIM-54C were withdrawn from US service). So its at least 20 years newer than the AIM-54C and designed to compete with the AIM-120. So you tell me where that falls in the hierarchy laid out by Ironmike. Basically if you are fighting a JF-17 with SD-10's (A modern 4th gen fighter ) Expect it to be a very hard fight just like fighting an F-16 or F-18 with AIM-120C-5's. The R-77 is unusual and honestly doesn't really fit. Its more dangerous up close because its fast, but you can easily out range it. So treat it like an R27R, just know if you get too close it gets more dangerous since they can launch and leave, or kill you after you kill them and the missile is active. Otherwise its not that big a deal.

https://www.lockonforum.de/community/thread/6667-flyable-fc3-flieger-mit-3d-f-15c-cockpit/?pageNo=1 VSN_G91 und VSN_F100

Hey Tomcatter, somehow this managed to fly completely under my radar, my apologies. It is tracked now. We need to check if this is something to be fixed on our side or DCS side, but we will investigate further. Thank you very much for the kind reports and reminder!

This was also reported here: @BIGNEWY The current implementation, cannot possibly be correct. I think there's just a misunderstanding here. 1) If you are using an actual TDC mini stick when pressing the "TDC depress" command, it's not practically possible to press this button without also causing a slight amount of axis input. This small input will make the depress input malfunction (like Minsky explains in example 2). The only workaround is to add a significant deadzone to the TDC axis or (what I've done) use a completely different HOTAS button for the TDC Depress action, than the actual DCS Depress button. 2) I would be curious what documentation/information says (or even points towards) that moving the TDC when in WPSDG mode should "Have no immediate effect, but instead cause an alternative behavior to any future TDC depress input". To be honest I don't think there is any documentation indicating that, but instead, the team has just not understood the bug report and/or has not been able to reproduce it. As for the correct implementation there are two reasonable different options (I don't know which one would be correct): A) TDC axis input doesn't do anything at all (sounds like the easiest fix, and what the current implementation is TRYING to do, but it's bugged). B) TDC axis input causes an "automatic" TDC depress input, going into ground stabilization and enabling slewing (convenient, logical, but just speculation) @Mo410 Do you have any additional input?

No, the panel resolution is 2160 per eye, the render resolution to account for lense distortion is closer to 3200 wide (2160x1.477), set the render resolution to 2160 wide and it looks terrible. Don't ask why the render resolution on the G2 was far higher than it was on the G1 when they both use 2160 panels but the resolution when set by steam supersampling and openxr resolution overrides at 100% has been confirmed by HP tech to be correct at 3100ish wide.

The aim120 and aim54 use a different API, yes. 40nm is long range, but not longest range. If you fire on targets at 80nm, the phoenix will win over the aim120. But within 40nm, ofc the aim120 will and should win. The aim54 benefits from many things, mainly range, that is very long range. There are also effective ways to use the aim54, albeit you have to find out and adapt. One of the problems is pitting the aim120 against the aim54 in DCS. This was never a thing in real life. The aim120 was a successor of the phoenix (the newer, more powerful, improved missile), not a threat to Tomcats. If you pit the aim54 against its irl threats, then you can clearly see its advantages. It never was developed to fight against F16s or F15s. It is natural that in DCS this is a thing, but has and cannot have any bearing on the simulation of the aim54. There will be no performance improvements, as the performance is as close as we can get it now, and we have no intentions to change that. Guidance improvements - which are not in our hands - and the transfer to the new missile schema, may give it a very tiny boost, but I would not expect much. F-14s vs amraam slinging F15/6/8 - outside of scenarios like red flag or trainings - is just not realistic. It is a bit like saying "how can the r60 keep losing against an r73?" Well, because the latter is the more modern, improved missile. You can still win against a Viper, Hornet or Eagle, but you have to work much harder for it, just like you would have to if you went with a MiG29A with R27Rs against a Flanker with R27ERs, or let alone against an SU-30 with R77s. The idea that a Tomcat should always win over its more modern successors, is somewhat misguided, if I may say so. It can, but it will be much more difficult than the other way around, which is expected. If however you create historically more or less accurate scenarios with its contemporary threats and opponents, you are pretty much mopping the floor with everyone else.

I am nitpicky as hell and it's still my most-flown and favourite module, do with that info what you will. It's fun despite its shortcomings.

Projects will always take a long time, the complexity of these modules is very high. I know you support us in your own way and we appreciate it, some people can not help but be negative, and we understand that. Early access is optional, you do not have to participate in it, and maybe going forward if the long development times dont suit you for future projects you should consider waiting for a full release. Either way you have given your feedback on this many times in the past and again here in your latest thread.

We compared the DCS Mirage performance with the F-16C performance document available on the internet and the Mirage STR was always bellow the F-16C, I don't know how accurate the DCS F-16C FM is regarding STR but we can't adjust the Mirage FM based on other modules.

Ah, couldn't imagine that it would mean that (but then by getting older and older and older things get more and more and more blurry).

Thanks for the track, it seems manually commanding the unlock helps, but I will ask the team if this is the correct behaviour thanks

Moving forward would be a more stable firing position. But I think the decision to hover or not should be driven by tactical thinking and not just 'hovering is hard'.

This report should help you build better and more accurate missions concerning the Persain Gulf map and Gulf War simulation events. This report describes each aircrafts role and what they did and where they did it. There are some aircraft DCS does not have like the Buccaneer and the Jaguar. DOWNLOAD: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AKPMuusQfCZqHS4w6GFUJjMnvX97DOlp/view?usp=sharing

It seems that it is quite complete

My wish list: Sepecat Jaguar TSR2 V-22 Osprey CH-47 or C/MH-53 Hawker Sea Fury Spitfire Mk. XIV or later - Griffon engine.

Dear all, In the next Open Beta, we will be adding the new CP/G target identification system. I plan to create a video on this next week, but in the meantime, please find an updated George document that describes the new system beginning on page 17. Kind regards, Wags AH-64D_George_2.pdf