Leaderboard

Status update: 217 (58%) of 370 test cases done.

Guys, I appreciate your thoughts, but as we say in german, let us leave the church in the village. (which in English translates to let's not get carried away...)

Not a model but I am in the process of restoring a pilots instrument panel for an F-4C Phantom that last flew with the 93rd. Tactical Fighter Squadron "The Makos" out of Homestead AFB, Fla....As you can imagine parts are hard to come by but I am getting closer . Some pieces I have had to reproduce like the Master Caution and Fire warning lights covers. Also made a reproduction of the Missile and Bomb control panel and working on making a Missile status panel right now.. ..

RAZBAM Mig-23 MLA Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

That is the plan, but it's of course dependent of what kind of issues I find during testing. So far I've mostly found small stuff that I fix as I go. As it's the version 1.00 I'll be releasing, there will be a couple of known issues as well. Because there are stuff that takes much longer to fix, so I'll probably take care of them in the following version.

Hi all, we have added this to the download page as most servers are using open beta ( a choice the community has made ) and often new users will ask why there are not many servers on the stable version. It can be frustrating for new users who have downloaded the stable version only to find the community is using open beta for multiplayer and have to download open beta after the fact. We totally understand peoples need to see new features and modules as soon as they hit a public version of DCS (even if it is a public test version), but also want new users who want to play multiplayer to hit the ground running and have access to as many servers as possible. thanks Bignewy

You are right. Police light is not iluminating anything as intended like landing light does. It will be fixed.

They're fine. Commentors get a bit pompous because the GR have fun with the sim, not taking themselves too seriously.

So I saw a thread on Reddit this morning asking if we’ll ever get a super hornet. So what? I hear you cry, that gets asked every other week. Well as I scrolled down the page I found @NineLine’s response: “You just never know…” That is Not a no! To quote George from Blackadder goes forth, Permission to shout Bravo at an annoyingly loud volume, sir?

Because nearly all the multiplayer servers run Open Beta, and always have. ED's probably just adding that now to cut down on the daily masses of people asking why they can't see anything on the connection list. There's also no reason not to run Open Beta, since Stable is just an older version of OB with no changes made. Both versions are essentially as buggy as one another, with the exception that OB gets fixes first.

I can confirm, but as you know, no hard promise, things can always happen, etc. We will have more and bigger news for you guys soon.

Hello Pilots, I'd like to drop the: MIL-STD-2161A, B & C PUBLICATIONS FOR: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE STANDARD PRACTICE: PAINT SCHEMES AND EXTERIOR MARKINGS FOR US NAVY AND MARINE CORPS AIRCRAFT. Covers all USN and USMC aircraft form 1993 - 2019. UPDATED 01AUG2025 DOWNLOAD: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gTPJjI5njr2XY6X8AI56WuWZphKFI2Jn/view?usp=sharing Enjoy my friends.

The amount of time people have taken to type and respond in this thread they could have mastered AAR lol.

In the B, no AB on take off, and in the A, you can reduce it a bit just after take off, and even if not, you should have ample time to retract the flaps. Just something you need to prepare yourself ahead for.

Hi. Please read the following threads. They all refer to FPS issues and they were all solved. https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/268000-massive-fps-drop-after-update-to-27/?do=findComment&comment=4699596 https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/256136-fps-down-dramatically-after-update/?do=findComment&comment=4515877 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=284363 Also please check Windows HAGS (GPU Scheduling) is disabled.

Seeing what you went through in order to get this "fixed", I'm feeling sorry for you, but yeah, sorry, I also find this very funny

DCS does require high winds to see much movement from the carriers. However, in real life, swell has as big an impact on vessel movement, and that is currently not modelled in DCS (AFAIK). It is these long swells that cause heavy pitching and rolling movement, and can even be found on relatively calm days, as they are sometimes a result of a weather system many thousands of miles away. I've done Pacific crossings where the water was like glass, but we were still rolling 15deg either way. Ideally, swell should be a separately defined parameter in the ME, with chop influenced by winds, which would be closer to real life, and allow for some more dynamic deck movement, without having to contend with 50kt winds. Obviously, the interaction between two sets of dynamic fluids is complicated, especially when multiple swells and complex bathymetry are in play, and given that the water in DCS is essentially a flat plane, it may be difficult to visually represent, IDK.

Наземные РЛС ДРЛО передают информацию ботам. Но нужно выставить правильную задачу. На картинке.

Agreed, I hate to use the term but a couple of Mudhens with a few racks of SDBs would be pretty damn OP... And I have zero problem with that.

Thanks for this status update ! Good luck for the testing!

Hi gents. Let's not forget RedKIte ( https://www.youtube.com/c/RedKiteRender). For me the n 1 (Sir RedKite to me). Nice, comprehensive and with some humor. Not all the modules (of course), but the one are impressive. Saludos. Saca111

Guys, this is the English forum. Talking German here and excluding everyone else from the conversation isn't very polite... There's the German sub forum for this: https://forum.dcs.world/forum/26-deutsch/

Trying to be as objective as I can without getting into debates of which is better (as well as staying on topic with your request for "Options". Quickly off the top of my head): Spudnocker has some tutorials (amongst other things) "One Minute DCS" can be very handy for a quick overview (he tires to stay true to his name as best he can), or quick recap. (However there can be some vulgar language in there, so use at your discretion depending on what you find appropriate). Very short - to the point. Wag's video's can be quite helpful. A bit longer than some others as he explains various things more as a tutorial. (Often before the module or feature is released so people like the long video's because they want to see as much of it as they can - I remember hanging out for the Hind and then the Apache video's) I'm not sure there is a 'one stop shop' for the best tutorials across the board in DCS. GR can be handy as they show the controls that are bound for that particular operation (which I think is very helpful), but can often waffle on as they're 'learning it too' on the fly in some video's, and depending on who you talk to - may not be the accurate way of doing some things, or have misleading information in some of the video's. (Yet - they're still able to perform the operation). From what I gather, the more of a purist you are - the more you may get annoyed with GR. The more of a beginner, or just wanting entertainment, the more you might enjoy GR. Simple fact is, different people have different priorities, things that they enjoy and things that erk them. My suggestion is take everything someone else says about preference with a grain of salt and find out what you enjoy and suits you the most.

Clearly there's a large number of people who don't consider modern aircraft dull or requiring less skill. The amount of time you spend on learning how to operate the jet, its systems and weapons is arguably more than the time you'd need to become competent in flying a non-FBW aircraft (in DCS). The "learning phase" of a modern aircraft module is much longer than, say, a WW2 one. And that's very important for people who like focusing on the "study sim" aspect of DCS. You can make the capability overlap argument for most modules. Most aircraft of the same period are capable of doing the same things. With the amount of Cold War aircraft currently in DCS, plus those recently announced, the overlap in capabilities will be huge. People like various aircraft for various reasons. Lastly, you mention the blufor vs redfor balance, which is not really a concern in DCS and shouldn't really be. If a server owner doesn't want to include the Rhino (or the upcoming F-15E and EF Typhoon, for that matter), they don't have to.

I feel like

And just think how much better the Strike Eagle will be if the CFTs can be removed! Am I right!? (Sorry. I couldn't control myself)

Yeah, not only is it one of the more capable versions - it's also the one that's probably the most historically relevant and the only variant which we arguably have a map for (Syria reaches into Iraq, with a major airbase (or cluster of them, even better - an airbase cluster that the EQ at least visited)). The SoH/PG map could also be easily used for it, as Iran captured Iraqi EQs.

I do realize that, however: - the G can do everything the C can do (but better), except for the bolt-on refuelling probe - the A can't do much at all (except for the 319FIS -19 motor conversions, which would be awesome to have) Then there's the elephant in the room, which is the missing Vietnam map

The only titles which were feeling like empty/boring are **************. They were the most unfun sims for me, completely sterile, boring and literally empty. DCS got worse because everything seems so mixed up in terms of eras, dislodged. Compare flying DCS F-14 with ******** gets everything right in terms of atmosphere, the right era, right foe, right equipment. ******* as well. Something very essential is missing here which other sims (a lot of them) delivered in the past and were a foundation, especially for good memories. Now everyone here acts as if nothing was missing and go nuts reg. modules coming out. I always wanted a ******, it's coming. My friend goes nuts about this aircraft as well. But there is nothing to do with it. I dislike the editor... creating missions for myself and act surprised about bandits. Or flying the ***** in some modern maps in (year 20xx) and not in some 70s/80s maps. The whole concept doesn't work for me. That's why I never could have much fun with like I had with almost any other simulator in the past. It's just sandbox. Why is it so hard to add some fun elements to the game? I don't think that this dynamic campaign will surpass ****** with it's "out of cockpit" experience, 2D maps with recent actions happening over Korea, comms running etc. ... why must simulations be so sterile? No news, nothing to share. =\

Never mind i forgot the oxygen. Sorry

News footage and how JDAM weapons behave in real life. Notice the sudden decent rate change.

I would love to see proper splash damage on stuff like rockets and dumb bombs. Especially rockets. The S5 and S8 rockets used in the Soviet aircraft, along with the 2.75 inch FFARs in the Apache are seriously weaksauce. They are pretty much dead weight and rarely produce a useful effect. I should not have to magdump both pods into an area of six Humvees to potentially kill one of them. There should be fire, carnage and destruction. If I fire a few into a formation of paratroopers on the ground, there should be fleshy carnage. Instead, rarely are one of them killed. So I lean on my cannon--which oddly does have a bit of splash to it, and is immensely more effective. What I don't understand is the cannon produces almost no explosion, while the rockets make big badda boom. Like a smoke grenade or a flashbang. And that's about all they do. Iron bombs are similar in that they might land next to a target and nothing happens. This is not what Vietnam footage suggests. When these things explode there are shockwaves and carnage. I'd like the same here. Compression waves that hurt stuff nearby. If I iron bomb next to a bunch of ground troops, they're gonna be dead. Yet they aren't. It would be very nice if ED addresses these ordinance shortcomings and improve the experience. Thanks. Edit: Here's some footage to bolster my request: Watch how they impact. Do they look weak? The journalist said two people were seriously injured. In DCS, that man walking next to the explosion would be unscathed. This simply isn't so in practical real world use of the weapons.

A lot depends on the module you're trying to learn. The A-10, for example, has a ton of tutorials that are almost professional in nature. The FA-18 is close second and there are more options almost daily with the F-16. For some lesser played aircraft, GR might wind up being about your only option. They have a ton of content. If you're wondering how do I shoot, there's nothing wrong with GR. If you're wanting things that are more in-depth, too the point, or "professional quality" there are better out there. I certainly wouldn't tell anyone to "avoid GR". I used to watch a bunch of their stuff when I was starting off in DCS. I just feel there's better out there. This thread has already mentioned a lot of the channels I'd recommend. I'd personally add Bogey Dope (https://www.youtube.com/c/BOGEYDOPE/featured) if you're looking at F-16 and there's still none better than Bunyap Sims (https://www.youtube.com/user/4023446/videos) for the A-10.

See that's what I am talking about. Not even enough to tell me how to play, now you try to control my whole life and priorities. That's why we will never have a common understanding. You want to micromanage how everyone has to play DCS according to your views, while I simply want the freedom to adjust the difficulty of one of the most difficult things in DCS, for myself (!) similar to what take-off assist and auto-rudder already provides. It's not even about the option of an AAR assist. Just about control.

Let's look closer. You claim easy AAR means everyone flies around in burner, presumably because for some reason everyone who plays DCS utterly lacks self control and is at the whims of their need for immediate endorphin release or something. Now let's focus on the players who know how to AAR, who wouldn't be meaningfully different from other players. Since they all want to fly around in AB all day and they can AAR, then it implies that having tankers a mission would enable these players to do and create an air quake environment. I mean, I guess you could take more issue with how many buttons it takes someone to do something that you will never be able to detect them doing. I'd rather focus on how realistic the situation is though.

Nothing to do with name calling. The thing that gets people heated up is that some players feel entitled to decide how others have to play. Even if it would be in single player. I have no issue with AAR assist being an option in MP that you could deactivate on a server and I guess nobody else would. If "everyone" deactivates AAR assist on their server, fine with me. I can still train in Single Player and host our missions with AAR assist enabled. No problem at all.

Objectively false, and painfully obvious that it's false. Unlimited Fuel takes away fuel management, makes external tanks pointless, and can be used to make a plane unrealistically agile (or sluggish). AAR assists do none of those. So you think having tankers makes DCS arcade. That's your opinion but I don't think it's a popular one. No. FC3 is not going anywhere, and it wouldn't matter if it was. I have to ask why you even bring this up. What singular thing does this have to do with the fact that people can choose varying levels of realism on a continuous spectrum rather than only choosing extremes? I could point out that Uranus is the coldest planet in the solar system despite being closer to the Sun than Neptune, but I wouldn't when it has nothing to do with any posts being made.

You left out the Buccaneer. The Brits are never going to let you hear the end of that.

Thanks for the hint. Sometimes I don't check the language and just answer the question in the language that is used. Sorry. Edited my posts.

They can't. With the new AM5 requirement for a new motherboard, and AM5 motherboards going for no less than 800€ currently, they would risk loosing market to Intel. If AM5 prices were more reasonable, yes, but AMD has become Intel now.

No....Its my private collection....I finished restoring a Matin-Baker H7 Ejection Seat from an F-4E/G last year. This panel when done will go nicely with it with the Flight Helmet and gear I have from a Phantom pilot that flew F-4's from Vietnam up into the late 1980's....

I think you may be missing the point. By changing the saturation, you get more stick movement for the same elevator movement, hence adding sensitivity by nature of the longer throw. Btw, I do have an extension on my stick.

No, it's a direct result of a shift in announcement policy, made to prevent duplication of effort at the cost of possibly being a pain in the PR. They used to announce a module when it was nearly ready, now they're going to do so shortly after it's taken. As a result, a number of projects that were being developed under wraps had come out of the woodwork.

Well, the whole story reads like what you say....and then "DON'T glue the Spreader back on !!!" It will need to be Direct-Die cooled I personally delidded, and glued back the IHS, on my 8700k and it still runs great every day as my HTPC with a Noctua fan meanwhile. With this, you really need to think twice. If you have ever worked on AMD Thunderbirds back in the day, oh oh, you know that those dies don't like any mishaps, not even the slightest. I smoked one with the first push of the button. I'll never forget that smell and grey smoke. Der 8auer's video is nice, seen it, but boy, there are many many tiny little parts everywhere. If one goes blingggg...ooops...you are screwed. It makes it interesting, rewarding if successful and thrilling all at once, just don't mess it up. Never, when you work with the CPU and cooler !

We really need the EQ-5 or the EQ-6, Exocet, As.30L, the french BGL bombs, asimetric loadouts... I would pay for it gladly.

The F-16 is completely capable of mounting the LAU-88/A with no modifications completely as is - the only thing unrealistic is the LAU-88/A was out of inventory by the mid 2000s. As for 4 HARMs, according to Wags some are wired for it, some aren't. Aircraft payloads should be realistic to the aircraft being created. And? The F1M isn't a prototype, neither is the AM.39 or the AS.30L or whatever TGP the Iraqis had, nor were they tested/cleared/fired/wired on an F1M. What's this then? Or this? Whoops! And in any case, it was wired for 6, can carry 6 (evidently), the radar was designed to be able to support 6... If it can accomodate the pylon and is wired for it, then there's nothing unrealistic about it. The F1M has yet to fly with AM.39, AS.30L, the targeting pod (Atlis? Patrick?), at all... And? As common as "x is unrealistic so y should be too" argument is (even in cases where "x is unrealistic" aren't even true), no-one ever seems to be able to justify it, wonder why...

If somebody will do the 104, they'll need to do the F-104G (AG and naval sub-versions) TF-104G (because it's cool and duals are fun) F-104S (and possibly the ASA uprade) If they're smart, they'll start with the TF/F-104G in one package and sell the F-104S and F-104S-ASA as another package. If they're really smart, they'll include the naval G (Kormoran missiles and AS 30 missiles) in the 104S package, as the later german naval versions all had the -J1K motor (long nozzle) and had the post '68 Martin Baker seat mod. That way, you'd get a good deal of coverage of sub-variants.

Only the devs can answer this, speculating on the intended behaviour is not going to give you an accurate answer because JDAMs are very complicated and the integration will change from jet to jet. Since JDAMs are so complicated beasts, copy pasting a CEP value from a public source will leave you with a very incomplete picture. Remember that CEP is basically a statistical value, not the exact dispersion that your bombs will necessarily have in practice. It's a very long and complex discussion, but just to illustrate the point, let's get into the weeds of JDAM a little bit. What factors contribute to JDAMs missing their targets? The potential inaccuracies are the GPS solution, imperfect control inputs by the autopilot (guidance error) and target location error. Obviously the error due to the autopilot is something that's inherent to the weapon itself and you cannot do anything about it as an aircrew. GPS related errors are multifaceted issues, it can be due to reduced accuracy in the navigation solution (improper geometric alignment of the satellites, terrain masking, increased solar activity etc.) or it can be the result of the User Equivalent Range Error, which is essentially due to inaccuries tied to the GPS receiver itself. [This topic in general has plenty of fully open source literature so if someone is interested they can really dig into GPS as a whole.] TLE is the result of inaccuracies when deriving coordinates for an arbitrary point in 3D space. Simply put, you cannot be sure that using your on board sensors, the coordinates that they will generate will be the actual coordinates of what you want to target partially due to the small statistical uncertainty of the GPS solution. This uncertainty is understood by asking where the center of the GPS solution is on the aircraft. The center of the jet itself? The cockpit? The bomb? The GPS antenna? The targeting pod? All of these are a small, but measurable distance away from one another. This issue is exacerbated if the GPS solution is reduced in accuracy due to any of the previously established factors. The other part that can contribute to TLEs are essentially errors. These errors are mainly influenced by slant range. Pointing the targeting pod at something from far away may not actually point at what you want it to point at, parts of the picture can be foreshortened if the graze angle is too shallow, the visual fidelity may not be good enough to accurately ascertain what it really points at and using passive ranging it can give erroneous values. Using the laser rangefinder in a situation like this to figure out slant range (and therefore height above target using trig) can make the problem worse, because you can end up getting into the first-last return problem due to the increased spot size (spot size increases with increased slant range and decreased graze angle) and having the slant range being calculated from a point that's not the intended target. This is why in reality, the aircrew is given a set of parameters where the designation is considered valid and that is established through testing. These errors regarding the sensors themselves can be mitigated by using the proper sensors for the specific aircraft (some can use SAR mapping to generate valid coordinates while other may not, some can use passive TGT pod ranging accurately, some need the laser, some are not allowed to use DTED derived elevation and some may be etc.) at the appropriate range and altitude to drop the designation. This is not a separate issue but having accurate altitude of the target is incredibly important, it must be emphasized. Remember that the bomb is seeking a 3D point in space, so even if the 2D position is correct, if the altitude is not, it will likely land long or short. This is sometimes called "6-12 error" (imagine a clockface, target in the middle and the bomb either lands towards the 12 o' clock position or the 6 o' clock position) and it can be heavily mitigated by using steeper impact angles and having very accurate elevation for the target. This is the reason why using on board DTEDs is likely not going to be good enough because their accuracy can be limited. But remember, not just the pointing errors can contribute to TLE but the aircraft's own position error itself. The absolute position of the target can be expressed in Earth based coordinates. These Earth based coordinates in a preplanned strike can be mensurated and uploaded to the bomb. If dropped, the bomb will directly guide to the these coordinates on its own. In this instance you mitigate all the potential issues, because even though the bomb's INS is aligned based on where the aircraft thinks it is through the transfer alignment (so the aircraft can hand off an erroneous position), it will acquire the satellites after release and have the ability to correct both for handoff error and the drift of its own INS. The coordinates are absolute (Earth centered) and accurate and with the satellite data it will also have an accurate position and at this point, the main contributing factors that can cause a miss are the autopilot guidance errors and a potentially degraded GPS signal. The issue here, of course is that you want the JDAMs to be flexible and the ability to employ on non preplanned targets. But the aircraft's own position may not be perfectly accurate in relation to the Earth even using the most modern EGI and if that's the case, it may generate erroneous coordinates. There may be a small discrepancy between where the aircraft thinks it is (and the coordinates in the TGT pod will be derived based on its present position and where the pod is looking) and where it actually is. In this instance the coordinate is generated based on where the aircraft thinks it is, the position of the target is determined relative to the aircraft. To mitigate this issue, there's a special logic that the bomb can utilize called relative targeting. After acquiring the satellites, it can compare its own GPS accuracy to the value it was handed off by the aircraft. And in relative targeting logic if there's discrepancy between the two it can quantify it and give it a vector and using this vector, it can offset the target coordinates themselves. This is also called bomb on target (BOT) vs bomb on coordinate (BOC), with BOT being relative targeting and BOC being absolute targeting. To put it in simple terms, in absolute targeting, the bomb knows where it needs to go and during guidance it can correct its position compared to the position it was given by the aircraft. In relative targeting, the destination itself will also get corrected if needed. The exact mechanics of this are very complex and arcane and knowing that it can do it is more than enough for a general understanding of JDAM. (Hell, even real aircrew don't typically get into the weeds of this outside of like Weapons School.) The last point that we have to understand is that the the bomb's internal coordinate system may not be the same as the aircraft's. The altitude used by the aircraft for targeting is in MSL and the bomb requires height above ellipsoid or HAE. Converting to HAE is done automatically but errors can happen which is why its normal TTP or "read back from the bomb" or to look at the appropriate JDAM page and see the elevation that is fed into the bomb, not the elevation of the designation that the aircraft is using. So, knowing all this, how is the F-16's JDAM integration? It's not a particularly sophisticated or well integrated system. It cannot directly address the individual bombs nor can it display what's being uploaded in the bomb. It's a simple hack, at pickle the bomb without introducing any slew, the bomb will get the coordinates from the steerpoint/markpoint and invoke BOC logic, if designating through the pod, it invokes BOT logic. It cannot do proper multi targeting where you store different self designated targets while still utilizing BOT logic nor can you read back from the bomb. So IRL the employment method is lasing and then pickle for a self designated target or dropping on the steer/markpoint and incrementing if needed. The reason why this whole wall of text was necessary because this stuff is complex, depends on how the individual jet is integrated (like remember that the reason why the University of Teneessee whitepaper exists is because the Harrier back in the day didn't properly invoke BOT logic when using the TGT pod to self designate) and how much of these confounding factors are implemented by ED. Most of these aspects are not random errors, the expected accuracy can be better or worse depending on the conditions and aircrew actions. It's also a possibility for one jet being a more realistic implementation of a specific concept than an older jet in DCS, so only the devs can say what the intention here is.

GOD DAMMMMN... Thing of Beauty. Nothing gets me good and stiff as does a Starfighter, Especially F-104s Variants We really need the "Affordable" option to the F-4 for multiplayer even if it doesn't have a gun. Simple fact with the Mig 23 in development and I really want the Foxbat/Foxhound as official modules at some stage. this would provide at least some balance in that mid 70s time space in multiplayer.Heck I say do both the F-104s and the "GEE". Very much like to kill ships with Kormoran, and Penguin and if Italian "S" models can also fire "Marte" well "that's just the cherry on top".

It is caused by George. If you have George shooting, you have to command "cease fire" with short down. After that safe is working.