Leaderboard

Hi all, thought we would share a little tease of some work in progress for a future update. Night sky clouds.mp4 we hope you enjoy. thank you Eagle Dynamics

Digital Combat Simulator Black Shark 2022.10.13 - 15.50.45.06.mp4 Digital Combat Simulator Black Shark 2022.10.13 - 15.50.18.05.mp4 Digital Combat Simulator Black Shark 2022.10.13 - 15.48.24.01.mp4

Polychop discord OH-58 Kiowa

Things need to be done in steps to get to fully dynamic weather, getting them to look right, getting to look right while moving, etc etc. I know its not as fast as we all want, but we are trying to release them looking and feeling the best they can as we go along.

You have given your feedback, it is not necessary to keep repeating it, people will not always agree with you, that is not a problem.

As it seems, with normandy 2 map coming soon and no signs for a other (late war) european maps at foreseeable future, now would be perfect time to finally release Bf 109 G6. That one plane would finally fix something that has been incorrect for so long. So please make it happen.

Good, so I'm not the only one wanting it now

There has to be some care taken in requesting airfields; firstly there were a LOT of them in France, and expecting a developer to model them all would be unfeasible in both time, cost and processor budget; secondly, not all of them were used operationally. What do I mean by that? From my analysis - and this is not authoratitive, I'm sure there are some better educated Luftwaffe airfield experts that could correct the following opinion - there seem to be two distinct types of airfields: Operational - these were used (at some point, not necessarily throughout the war - I will expand on this in a minute) by combat units, for offensive or defensive combat missions, i.e. by bomber, fighter, fighter-bomber or nightfighter units. Administrative - these are too small or too under developed logistically to support combat units but were useful to keep maintained for embarking or receiving mail, light stores or personnel, stuff that needed to be moved expeditiously around France (which, after all, is a big country) Now, Dieppe-St-Aubin (and similarly Fecamp that is shown on the WiP map) seem to fall definitively into this last category. Whilst these would be nice to have, with airfield capacity of any given map at an apparent budget for those reasons listed above, given that we fly combat aircraft against other combat aircraft, would it not make sense that the adminstrative fields be relegated far down the priority list? Triquerville, on the face of it is an operational airfield, and therefore worthy of inclusion; but there's a catch... The last unit based there was in I./JG 2 and they left at some date in June of 1943. A full year before the invasion. Now did the airfield exist around the invasion? Sure, it was bombed repeatedly from June of '43 till February of '44 by B-17s and B-26s but eventually the Luftwaffe conceded and covered it in anti-invasion obstacles. So by the time of the map makers apparent chronology of the map, it is irrelevant; no Luftwaffe units were flying from there against the Allied forces in the 6 months prior to or in the immediate aftermath of invasion. The same is true of many, many of the Luftwaffe airfields in France, especially those nearer the coast, and those that we otherwise associate with the famous Luftwaffe Geschwader; Abbeville - 15 Mar 44: all 3 runways were mined during the preceding month and by 27 May the mines had been detonated and trenches dug across all remaining landing runs. Audembert - 23 Apr 44: work underway to permanently obstruct the landing area with trenches St Omer - (firstly, which one, as there were a number!) all of the airfields around St Omer are obstructed and/or mined by April of 1944. So many of those famous Luftwaffe airfields that people have heard about, by the time span relevant to the aircraft we have currently in DCS, are largely irrelevant. Would they be nice to see? Sure, but given that we don't have the aircraft types to recreate their operational history for the appropriate time periods, would it not make more sense to focus development energy on providing airfields with an operationally historical precedent to the aircraft types and at least rough chronological relevance? I know, people will say "what about the Battle of Britain", or "what if I want to create scenarios from earlier in the war"? Well fine. But if you are happy to use incorrect aircraft variants then why are you unhappy to use the wrong airfield? It is logically inconsistent. Personally, I say let the maps reflect the historical record as true as possible. This will allow the purists to make accurate scenarios. If you wish to what-if thereafter, then fine, subvert to your desires, that is your right.

But they already actually used them for quite some time, didn’t they. Can’t you really not see the flaw in your line of reasoning? Have you not the slightest clue how economics work? If I wouldn’t buy anything, just save my money for years over years. I would get interest an could afford much more sophisticated stuff for my money - but boy, what boring years that will have been…

I really hate the word "unfair". People never talk about what´s unfair when they benefit from something, only when they see someone else get a little bit of something they didn´t. It´s basically the word for jealousy. How is it unfair though? People who bought the Normandy 1 map, have had the access to use it.. why that doesn´t count? And if it´s not fair.. why should it be fair? The only thing to consider for the devs is to make a decision regarding a balance between what customers are willing to pay, and getting compensated properly for their work. They aren´t doing it for charity. It´s actual work, a lot of it.

Got a little work done today. Laser engraved the Asym limiter and UHF panels. Sanded and clear coated the translucent resin print of the LED cover, used my Brother P-touch to print out the freq list label. Put my knobs on and mounted it in the side panel. I haven't yet programmed the arduino for the frequency LEDS but that will come after I get all the panels finished and functional. There's kind of a jankiness to the engraving that I sorta like, makes it look more used and worn. I'm definitely not going for factory fresh. null

I guess I lost the equivalent of two beers. Poor me. On the other hand I've been using those maps for quite a while now. Worth way more than two beers though. Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

I could easily afford a 4090 card, I am not buying one on principal Nvidia are totally taking the P when it comes to pricing on these next gen cards Maybe if enough people did this they might consider reducing their prices, but if enough people buy them it does not bode well for the future

the last message from the dev team is that, the project still alive and they are working in private since people put lot of pressure, we wish them good luck.

Fully agree, couldnt have said it better

MB-339A vs A-10C (oficial modules)

The discount ensures that you're getting a map update essentially for free. What is unfair here? If you bought the two maps originally, you thought they were worth paying for. If it turns out that was not the case, then that's not ED's fault.

It looks like wind affected clouds are coming soon:

My 2 cents; 1. Farnborough and Heathrow are irrelevant airfield choices; there are far better choices better relevant to the aircraft available in DCS. For example there are a slew of Advanced Landing Grounds based in the New Forest area west of the Solent that would be eminently suitable for the P-47; additionally RAF Thorney Island would make a prototypical home for fighter bomber Mosquitoes on the Normandy map. I have already provided information pertaining to these in these forums. 2. The lack of airfields that otherwise appear on the Channel map is disappointing; if ED are willing to share their development data for these airfields (Biggin, Detling, Manston etc) it opens up far more flexibility for mission makers who wish to make historically authentic missions to utilise both maps as appropriate to the mission target whilst keeping the player’s home base accurate - for example I might want to use 132 sqn based at Detling but attack a target that appears only on the Normandy. Previously I would have either had to use the channel map to have the correct home base but make the target in an inaccurate location or alternatively, use the Normandy map but use the wrong airfield to base the player at and have the target in it’s prototypical location. I was hoping this quandary would have been a thing if the past. 3. Since day 1 of Normandy 1 being announced many of us have been asking for the ability to remove/redact or otherwise have a version without the French allied ALGs; this would allow for the map to be prototypical for a far wider period than having them baked in. Is there any way that the locations could be left as grass field locations and for mission makers to load in templates to show the ALGs as required by mission date? 4. If any detail is required on any airfield layout I am happy to assist, free of charge, and provide relevant documentation, maps etc to ED or Urga. Please PM me. 5. There are a few of the large Luftwaffe airfields in France that are often referenced in allied combat reports (Poix, Montdidier) that aren’t included but the tiny (and operationally almost irrelevant) Fecamp field is; what is the justification for this choice?

The one thing I don't get is: why should the poorest customer in your examples now should pay 14.99$ instead of the offered 9.99$? I am one of those and beg you: please don't speak for me.

There's nothing odd about it, these are typical nvidia supply tactics. Can't get people to blow $1600+ if you don't create false demand. Mining is dead, the only people buying GPUs this time will be gamers and scalpers who are too dumb to realize that their time is over. There will be plenty of supply in the next month or two.

That's my job. For the rest of your post, you are reading a lot into what I said. I suggest you re-read it. I never said the did a much lower level than they should have, Normandy was one of the first 3rd Party maps made when map tech was much less matured than it is now. This is nothing unusual. For example if the Caucasus was to be updated it would have to be done from scratch and be totally new. It is using hybrid tech and not upgradeable at all. Again, you have a choice, you can choose not to get the updated version, I am sure some servers will keep their servers running the old map. Campaigns will still support the old map, all the current missions are still there. Nothing will change for you if you want to stay with 1.0. Please do not make more drama where there is none. Sadly sometimes to move things forward hard choices need to be made.

Sorry, then you’re bound to be doing it wrong. That’s the beauty of flying different aircraft, you need to learn different procedures. Expecting the F-16 procedures to fit the Tomcat which is a very different jet, is never going to work 100%.

What @draconus said, except: flip the wings to auto at 280 only, gear at 250, flaps, DLC at 220 but if you want to go easy on the airframe, drop it at 200 only. Once abeam at 600 feet AGL, begin a 27 degree bank turn (assuming you're at the correct distance abeam, if not, adjust), at -2-300 fpm. At the 90 increase the descent to -4-500 fpm, then as you roll out you wanna go for -700 fpm. If you're doing everything right, you don't need to touch the DLC, but it should be out. If needed you can move it to adjust your glidepath, but always use the throttles first. Also, if you go for the carrier break (over the field) you can approach at 800 AGL too.

Reading and understanding was a prerequisite for posting. You simply did not point out any unfairness. So I'm still left with the question, what is unfair here? If we go back to my post I think I clearly explained that the map is being given away nearly for free to a few sets of people. Those people made the choice to purchase different maps in the past, maps that they thought were worth purchasing at the time. I don't see any problems.

We're already getting a fictional map. As we all know Australia isn't real, it was invented by Hollywood in the 80s for the movie Crocodile Dundee.

Yeap, I think it is very unfair. That poor guys which never bought the channel map missed out for a long time. I consider it fair though that they get a little compensation now . So unfair - fair = 0?

@SkateZilla can we just close this thread then ? I see no point to it any further.

https://twitter.com/RAZBAM/status/1580235664968540160 https://twitter.com/RAZBAM/status/1580268818290847744

PF / PFM were second best, after MiG-21bis, when it comes to thrust to weight ratio, and only because latter one had second afterburner stage. Take that out of the equation, and PF / PFM end up at the top with T/W in excess of 0.8 And if you really want to be prepared to fight Phantoms (especially F-4E than PF / PFM with R-13 engine will be needed ). Michael Wegerich, former NVA and Luftwaffe pilot who flew, among other things, MiG-21M, than MiG-21SPS (NVA name for PFM) and finally MiG-29, preferred the SPS. I recall similar statement from a Czech pilot. So Michael, in recently released book about NVAs JG-1 - "697, Montur-Start, Überfahrt zu Halifax-Start, Kanal 1", said this about MiG-21SPS (mind you its automatic translation from German to English, some errors will be there): "FLYING ON THE MIG-21 SPS / SPS-K - Michael Wegerich, Lieutenant Colonel NVA While I loved the MiG-21 F-13, my true love was the MIG-21SPS. It was very balanced in controllability and stability. It reacted immediately to control deflections and could be flown in a stable attitude without great effort. Compared to the F-13, the controls felt slightly subdued and not as fidgety. This made flying easier, especially when intercepting targets in the clouds or at night. But even in a dogfight, the controls left nothing to be desired. A clearly audible warning shaking signaled that the maximum permissible angle of attack had been reached and that the aircraft was about to tip over or be imminently stalled with an unwanted rotation as a result. With only two weapon stations, the SPS was very light compared to its successors and it was powered by the powerful R-11F2S-300 engine with 6,175 kg of thrust. The SPS had a thrust to weight ratio greater than 0.8. Relatively tight maneuvers were possible thanks to this good thrust-to-weight ratio. It was permitted to go up to a loads of 8.5 G. Even brief 11.5 G did not bother the aircraft. It wasn't a heroic feat, but I once pulled enough in air combat training to shake off my opponent. I managed to do that, but for the time being I had to do without the next flight on the same machine. As the permissible load of 8.5 G was exceeded, the machine had to be checked to ensure that all devices, lines and cables were still in the correct place and that nothing was warped or bent. That lasted about an hour and my planned aerial opponent was in the air with another one in the meantime. After checking the aircraft, I was able to throw myself into the dogfight again with the aircraft, provided the permitted limits were observed. Such an experience strengthens confidence in the stability, reliability and performance of this technology. If some people dreamed of a Porsche in their garage, I would have loved to have had a SPS in my garage, to do a few flights at the weekend without asking anyone, without a flight order, simply for the fun and joy of flying this MiG. (...). After the work on the aircraft in the KRS, the machines had to be checked under simple weather conditions, i.e. blue skies and sunshine, before they were certified for combat training. If necessary, these flights were also carried out at the weekend with a small crew at the airfield and without much organization. Since I really enjoyed doing these flights with the SPS, I felt that this task was like pursuing a hobby at the weekend. After an engine change, the check flight program called for a check of the engine system to Mach 2 and to an altitude of 18-19 km. The SPS flew slightly faster than the F-13 at 2,175 km/h and achieved the same static ceiling altitude. The flight characteristics at altitude were just as excellent as with the F-13. The directional stability in the supersonic range and when flying with high angles of attack was improved by enlarging the vertical stabilizer and keel. The lurch around 21 the vertical axis was occasionally still noticeable when pulling up, but it was not a problem. The SPS accelerated best in the supersonic range compared to the other variants. The machine owed this to the powerful engine, the relatively low flying weight, but also to the new continuously and automatically adjustable cone. This regulated the air flow in the air intake section depending on the engine RPM, speed, altitude and angle of attack, so that the engine could be optimally supplied with air under all flight conditions. I noticed the effect of the positive thrust-to-weight ratio of the SPS in comparison to the successor models when I switched from the M/MF to the SPS and carried out my first summit interception. The interception procedure saw the climb to an altitude of 11-12 km with a west-southwest curve. At altitude, the aircraft accelerated to Mach 1.2 with a slight descent. The acceleration was speeded by the descending flight, since the drag coefficient increased with increasing speed at Mach 1 and only dropped sharply when Mach 1.1-1.2 was reached. This area had to be overcome quickly in order not to consume too much fuel. When Mach 1.2 was reached, a 180° turn was carried out on a north-easterly course with an inclination of approx. 35°. At the end of the turn, the speed should be Mach 1.5, then accelerate further to 1.8 and climb to the target altitude of 18 km. You had to fly the 180° turn very carefully, otherwise you wouldn't reach Mach 1.5 on the commanded north-east course. I flew the turn on my first flight on the SPS, as I was used to on the M/MF, very carefully and sensitively, with not too much bank and load multiples. At the end of the curve I had Mach 1.8 instead of Mach 1.5 because the SPS was able to accelerate very well. Corresponding to the high speed at the end of the curve, my curve radius was also much too large and I was much too far north for the normal recovery geometry, almost 30 km. Thanks to the energy reserves of the SPS and its agility under the flight conditions, I was able to correct this error and still successfully engage the target at an altitude of 18 km. This would not be possible with an M/MF , because of the increased weight one always flew with higher angles of attack and thus with higher drag, which resulted in higher fuel consumption. The stepless and automatically moving cone also made aerial combat easier than on the F-13. There were no restrictions on turning on the afterburner. Whenever you needed thrust, you could switch it on regardless of the load factor, angle of attack or position. An example of a flight maneuver where automatic control of the cone was required in air combat was the following: as a target for another fighter, I let the fighter fly towards me from behind and from a good attack position. Shortly before he was in firing position, I deployed the airbrake and pulled towards him at an 80-degree bank angle with a high loss of speed but a small turning radius, at the shaking limit, so that we met on opposite courses. None of his weapons, cannon or rockets, were usable now. At the same moment I switched on the afterburner, retracted the airbrake and the flaps to 25 degrees. I turned the machine on its back and pulled it down again at the shaking limit, i.e. with maximum angle of attack, behind the target and immediately retracted the landing flap again. With this extremely fast maneuver I flew at the permissible limit just behind the target. I was lower than the target and the pilot couldn't see me. I had to leave the burner in place, then I was within shooting range and was able to shoot it (simulated) without him seeing me."

My hope and best wishes to ED making those moving clouds synced in MP.

Scalpers. Scum of the earth.

Soon I won't have to ever go out the door, even looking out the window.

It's not a pita at all, it is the bread and butter of learning to fly different aircraft. Which ofc, one can still refuse to do so, but as others stated, you are setting yourself up for failure. That is the nature of flying different airframes: learning different procedures fitting the aircraft you fly. The more you learn btw, the easier it will be for you to adapt between one and another, so much so that you won't even think about it anymore. I would start by learning to land the Tomcat straight in on a landbased runway first, then indeed, flying a pattern can be done as wanted (realistic or not), as long as your setup and approach is correct when on final. Check out the video below:

To be clear, with the understanding you admit to having trouble slowing the aircraft down, and skipping the now twice mentioned need for aft sweep at the start of the crosswind leg- you do realize by starting at 1500' on the downwind rather than 800' your net altitude loss required to be at 600' in the base turn is 4.5 times higher (900' v. 200'), thus incurring (roughly) four times as much speed gained in the descent? The higher altitude increases your speed gain proportionally, meaning you now have to dump even more speed over the downwind leg to get to "on speed", which in a standard circuit reduces the amount of time to get the airplane trimmed up properly. That is to say, because you're choosing not to honor the numbers, you're making the process substantially harder on yourself. You may not think it, and you may not want to beleive it, but you are.

Reported to the team I was able to reproduce without jettison, the ground crew never answered when the refuel and rearm had completed. we will have the team take a look. thank you

Yes you do. With the wings back the drag coefficient is higher, so for the same AoA increase you get more drag increase. And that’s what you want. To slow down.

Hi @twistking, Yes this is totally different. That slider in the setting is preload radius it loads the terrain and world objects on that terrain to your RAM. With SSD's we do not actually need it but if you have huge amount of ram why not. This precaching loads active game assets too and since it is graphical cache it also uses VRAM. I cannot fly Apache without this mod in my current settings for example. No matter what preload radius I set in the slider. For example there is an allied F-16 flying 100 miles away which you are capable of seeing it via external cam if you want, this precaching logic already loads that and it's surroundings to be able to render it instantly if you ever want to switch to external cam and go looking for it. You will immediately see the effect if you now apply the mod and start spamming f2 cameras. It will switch to the camera but model textures will come 1/3 of a second later and in coming 2 seconds all ground textures will be loaded in your view. It is only good for content creators but you do not need that resource hog while you are actually flying.

Allow all planes of a package to take off at a desired time whatever if they have to ramp, whaterver the lenght of the taxiway ( with few seconds spacing between the different flights)

Allow the editor to make a section of 2 to 4 AI planes take-off in formation, even after having taxied from their parking soot to the runway make single AI planes t-off from one of two sides of the runway in order to allow a human player to take-off in formation with an AI); do the same for landing Make the AI do the most common patterns before landing (e.g. the navy overhead over an airfield) thanks

Wow I am surprised no one waited for AMD with RNDA3 GPU's coming out in the next month. 4090 seems a great card for 4k high refresh gaming though for the price of an entire new gaming rig (minimum price here in Australia selling for is over 3k and up t 5k for watercooled ones). Given I game at 1440p this card is just ridiculous over the top overpriced not to mention oversized and overweight. But it is super fast and isn't the ridiculous power hog that it had been wrongly speculated. Each to their own but for me it's a big pass. Waiting for Nvidia 4080 (proper variant, not the 4070 in disguise) and AMD's RDNA3 GPU's before I consider pulling the pin.

Bye Phant

bought gigabyte 4090 gaming OC at microcenter i just tried DCS with samsung Odyssey.. wow.. 90 fps all the way thru with visibility range to ultra, and 2x MSAA. (note, i was using 2080ti, and most of the time it was 50 fps) it went down to 70 with 4x MSAA on 4090 but wow.. so smooth on the odyssey headset.. and it was a joy to have things on high and ultra..seeing things nice going to try out aero later my 4090 purchase experience. i was shooting for gigabyte OC or zotac OC. waiting on the line to get in the store, a few said they were going for ASUS or MSI i went for gigabyte because i have bought in past with no problem but bummed that there is no more EVGA. drove home and start to question if i brought the right brand later on i looked up clocks and saw that MSI OC had the higher (excluding the ridiculously priced ASUS) and then i was eating myself up for not getting MSI, to find out they MSI gaming trio X has a power connecter that splits into three... (gigabyte gaming OC has a 4 way split PSU connector) now i am glad i bought the Gigabyte model....

Hi guys, Sorry for the late reply, I promise I will release something before the end of the year. Not sure what yet but best candidates are the seaking and an update to the ship pack. Might be both...or neither...but I'll release something, damnit

I will, but you have at least wait till tomorrow, since I'm away from my computer. For the Trigger assembly you want to look in thingiverse, I posted the files there. https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:5368280 The Fusion360 file is actually quite a mess, but I can share as well as soon as I'm back. Mind that it is not completely finished, since I changed some stuff while building and did not re-check, while other stuff is not incorporated yet, such as the spacing of the grips. They are a little too far apart from each other to my liking. But that would be something to be figured out by you. Since I have no experience in CAD and Fusion the timeline is a total disaster and the way I did a lot of stuff gives a CAD guy most probably a heart attack. If I forget about sharing, please give me a ping via PM. Now if I only would know how this Apache stuff would work , guess there is no way around readying the f... manual.