Leaderboard

The first post has been edited. Have fun with CAUCASUS REDONE REV. 2, guys!

Doh. Sorry guys, the mod won't make it today. I've encountered a bug while testing all four seasons for the last time. I'll publish it as soon as possible - tonight or tomorrow morning, depending how fast I'll fix it.

as the title says... The ratio between them is insane and not based in reality. Plus without a 'sea state' slider, the only way to get rough seas is to increase the 33ft winds but then the 1600ft winds turn even an F14 into a virtual helo! EDIT: Despite this being asked for, for years now, all it took was 15 minutes to find, understand and then comment out 15 lines of lua in one file (and added 7). It's not possible to add in the wind direction tool for the 1600ft winds because the back end doesn't allow the handle to the function. But it's usable as it is. Plus you get a nice windshear now too! The winds are now decoupled. See example (for openBeta) UPDATE: There is a missing ‘hook’ to force the weather DLL to stick to the set 1600ft wind speed, as it just wants to scale up or down in its own way. I spent 4 hrs today trying to get around that and enable the wind direction arrow wheel for the 1600ft winds but without that hook in the weather DLL I couldn’t do it. The lines I removed force the 1600ft wind to be scaled from the ground and vice versa. I doubt there is anything in the weather DLL that’s duplicating that. It must be a side effect of how weather DLL deals with wind gradients with altitude, plus the lack of forcing a non-scaled gradient via 1600ft wind setting being below the gradient means, this isn’t a complete solution. Sorry, it’s the best I can do. I just wanted to show ED that it’s trivial to decouple these. And with access to weather DLL to add the missing hook and fix the scaling it’s probably 30-60 mins in total to fix this. me_weather.lua

Смоделировать так динамическую погоду, чтобы получалась точная погода на местности по дате очень сложная задача. Я жду моделирование уровня - для этой миссии тут у нас будет буря, а за хребтом хорошая погода. Чтобы в полете можно было увидеть изменение погодных условий. А не одинаково по всему террейну.

Reflected Simulations DCS Campaigns - Bomber formation updates

For next update null

Yall catch a lot of flack (very passionate player base) so I figured I would share my mind. There is nothing like this game out there. The visuals with 2.8 are a decent improvement, the BFM AI is extremely fun... I know 2.8 hurt some performance (myself a VR player), but I do know that rewriting an engine is no joke. So keep it up, I get to spend countless hours getting smoked by my old man (former adversary pilot) and many other things. 20 years ago I could never imagined I would be strapping into a F18. Keep working the core of the game and the future will be bright! Keep the glass side up

Of course. Test flights like these aren't really useful for fine tuning, but they may help with illustrating the current state (roughly). Only 4 altitudes this time, as there is no 10000ft chart for the B model. 2x2x2 configuration 62000ft gross weight: 5000ft acceleration largely on point till about mach 1.10 or so. The plane then overperforms, reaching max mach 1.16 almost a minute sooner, and has max mach of 1.20 15000ft acceleration roughly on point till about mach 1.20 then plane starts overperforming reaching: mach 1.30 about 10s sooner mach 1.35 almost half a minute sooner max mach of 1.375 almost a minute sooner and has max mach of 1.41 25000ft plane accelerates inside expected time lines till about mach 1.4 after which the plane overperforms by: mach 1.50 about 15s sooner max mach 1.58 more then a minute sooner and reaches max mach of 1.65 35000ft plane is about 20ish seconds fast in reaching mach 1.00 then about 20ish seconds late in reaching mach 1.20 40s late in reaching mach 1.40 40s late in reaching mach 1.60 (which means acceleration between mach 1.4 and mach 1.6 is correct) 10s late in reaching mach 1.80 (which means acceleration between 1.6 and 1.8 is faster) almost a minute faster in reaching max mach of 1.825 and reaches a max mach of 2.00 As always, i would appreciate if someone would re-fly the mission with more precision and if possibly more then one iteration. I am especially skeptical of my 35000ft hop. Mission and tacviews attached bellow: acceleration tests 2x2x2 GE110.miz Tacview-20221107-233359-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2 GE110.zip.acmi Tacview-20221107-232624-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2 GE110.zip.acmi Tacview-20221107-231940-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2 GE110.zip.acmi Tacview-20221107-231334-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2 GE110.zip.acmi

15:20 in but worth watching the whole thing

Hi all Thank you for your patience here, we do have some changes coming in a future update for this. Things did get confusing as we had different people with different sources which were conflicting and reporting parts as broken when they were correct. On the other hand, there were also some valid errors. It’s a good example of why one issue per report is always better. The change will be as follows: You will still need to hold TMS forward to slave the FCR to the HMD LOS (ellipse visible) and release to start acquisition. What was incorrect is that the FCR should have been following the HMD when TMS was held forward, and once released, the FCR should have stayed in acquisition, even if no target was locked. thank you

Grazie mille [emoji120] Se un cliente paga deve avere tutto il supporto che merita. Siamo dell'idea che quando compri un prodotto con esso compri anche un servizio post vendita. A tal proposito mi viene in mente un'intervista a Ferruccio Lamborghini :) Inviato dal mio ASUS_I005D utilizzando Tapatalk

It is a 2.8 issue, not related to the mb339. ED is aware of that Inviato dal mio ASUS_I005D utilizzando Tapatalk

iirc that only worked for one of the folders (can't remember which one. I think it was FXO). So, we still had to manually remove the files from the other folder. I do agree with most of your posts @Mr_sukebe, but this time I share a different opinion Although I agree, it's not much work, it's definitely a bit strange that (anno 2022) manual action/folder cleaning is "needed" after a software update. I'm not entirely sure what all these shader files do (or do not do) exactly, and why it is advisable to delete 'em after each update, but even the ED community managers sometimes bring it up as potential solution in a response to people having gfx issues after an update. Many DCS customers never visit this forum and won't even know that deleting these folders is wise. It would definitely make more sense if ED were able to perform this action automatically as part of the update. (I suppose it's maybe an issue for them to implement force deleting files from user pc's. I'm a layman on this, but I can imagine that there are maybe administrator right issues. Then again, as @Art-J also mentioned, ED did manage it for one of the folders though.. so it should be feasible) EDIT: This thread actually belongs in the wish-list section, as technically this is not a bug.

Clarification on what? It’s good practice to empty them after a patch and dead easy to do yourself.

Here you go - all in dds 5 format converted with paintnet, I think everything you need is in here, its what I'm using currently so it should be okay: Have just added the few in game liveries I did have in the same format. I only have 4. https://www.dropbox.com/s/1rpx600g4bdthpl/CrazyEddies Bronco dds Textures.zip?dl=0 Link above updated to include liveries.

Ну по униформе палубной команды особо не понять что это женщина, униформа не подчеркивает издалека, а в лица всматриваться - щас бы. Однако женские голоса АТС, оператора ДРЛО и заправочной штанги КС-135 - давняя хотелка

Yeah I’m pretty sure they’ve lost interest in the editor. I’ve tried to reach out many times to nineline and bignewy but nothing about the editor. It’s cray cray

For me this issue is still present in DCS 2.8.0.32235.1 Open Beta. I hopped in a test flight taking off from Mount Pleasant in an F-16CM. Low level FPS is around 55 FPS, and whenever I'm above 800 feet AGL (this seems to be the exact cut-off point) FPS jumps up to 110 for me. That's literally half of my FPS taken away at low level (which unfortunately is pretty bad). This seems to happen for me in most places in the Falklands map, and never on other maps. I feel like, as specified in the above comments, I feel like the grass and rocks and other ground clutter on this map has an enormous performance impact. The performance impact disappears above 800 feet AGL which is when the ground clutter is no longer being rendered. I'm really hoping this issue can be solved as it's pretty immersion-breaking. The SA map is really one of my favorites but like this I cant do low-level flying missions

So, now that 2.8 is here, and we have had our issues with a few bugs and performance hits... I think it's high time I say something... There are some people who really need to stop whining. Now, I know we all paid good money for a product many probably feel isn't up to snuff... I get it. And I'm not going to join that crowd. Why? because unlike many of those that post comments like "Before long you'll need an $8,000 computer to play DCS!" or "This patch broke everything! Roar!" (obvious paraphrasing here), I do actually have an idea of what's going on at ED, without even having to step foot in their and ask the devs. For starters, and this is the artist side of me talking... game, software, and artistic development is not "File -> Make Pretty Thing" and wait for a few weeks for it to compile. I wish it was that easy. But it's not. There's a lot of moving parts in software development, and when a game reaches a certain point, there's only so much that can have resources dedicated to it. As such, I'll try to address as many issues as possible, and hopefully give some valuable insight. A quick bit of background... I am an artist, mostly focusing on fantasy and science fiction. I'm also an amateur writer, and back in 2006-2008, I was in the Command and Conquer modding scene. Sure, it's not game development, but it does give me a bit more knowledge on the subject than the average gamer. Broken Module Release From the F-5 to the AH-64, I'm pretty sure every module here has had its fair share of bugs at the start. Features that were promised, but never delivered, and all sorts of issues. However, there is a reason for this: At some point, that module is going to start costing more money sitting in development than can be justified, and it has to be released. Ever wonder why your favorite AAA titles release with bugs or missing features? This is why. The dev team really wants to squeeze in that one new feature, or polish that other feature, and they keep doing it, laboring for weeks or months trying to get it done to their satisfaction. All the while, holding up the progress of something else or worse, pushing the release date back. This is where the upper management typically steps in and goes "No guys, you don't understand. We have a deadline, we have to get this product out the door, so you either finish this feature by (insert deadline) or it gets scrapped" And given how much those studios pour into their games, scrapping any part of it is not a bullet they want to bite, but they have to bite at some point. The same holds true for DCS. As much as EDs in-house module guys want to include something with a module, or as much they want to ship the EA with X Feature... sooner or later, it must ship, and if it ships without it, then so be it. BUUUUUGS! BUUUUUUGS! (The only good bug is a dead bug!) As anyone who's ever dealt with software engineering will tell you... you can fix one bug, and several more will take their place. How often does this pop up in your social circles? "They broke (insert missile) again!" I hear it so freaking often I'm glad it's not a drinking game... I'd be legally dead by now if it were. I'd argue that the more appropriate term should be "They changed (insert missile) again", rather than broke it. Take the Phoenix for example. An often "broken" missile according to one of my squadron mates, and yet, I'm still achieving expected hit rates (I expect at least 1 in four to fail completely, 2 at the worst), Now, this might just be my own experience, but I wouldn't consider the missile "Broken". Real world missiles don't exactly have perfect stats either, which is why real pilots tend to ripple them off even today. I think most of these complaints come from those who just got used to the new missile meta, and are frowning at the fact that the missiles have been altered for reasons they just don't like. This is human nature sadly, we are very averse to changes in our environment... even our virtual one (think this is bad? brows some 40K social media... bring your volcanologist garb). The other issue I see here, is that you guys aren't reporting the bugs you see properly. Seriously, browse the Facebook page some time. Just count the number of times people screech out in all caps (or use expletives like drunken sailors) when complaining about a bug they experienced. This. Helps. No one. If you have spotted a bug (and I'm not believing that I'm the one saying this) go to the appropriate section in the forums, and report the bug. Trust me. Screaming "MY F-20 BLEW UP WHEN I DROPPED THE TANK! WHY YOU RELEASE THIS BROKEN GARBAGE!" on Facebook or HOGGIT isn't going to get the bug fixed. Coming here and going: "While I was flying level in my F-20, I noticed that the center-line tank was empty. I prepared it for drop according to the manual, and when I dropped the tank, the aircraft exploded. I was on the Stoneburner server, and I did the same thing multiple times and the same thing happened at least four times out of the ten that I tried it. I've attached the tacview files, as well as the track files from both my machine, and the server, as well as my PC build. I hope this all helps" That, followed by a few people all calmly going "Yeah, it happened to me as well!" will put that bug higher on the priority list for fixes, and then a few weeks later, tada, a fix. Now, obviously, this doesn't happen all the time. However, I'm sure we can all agree that it's more likely to happen when proper bug reports come in, vs the scream fests that I've seen on hoggit or Facebook. Now, speaking of priorities: Priority List Like many game devs, ED has a limited amount of staff available, and given that they're smaller than most devs, I have a gut feeling that at least some of the staff there have multiple hats they have to wear. If I'm wrong, then I hope to be corrected, but if I'm right, this just means we have to be that much more patient with these guys. If person A has both 3D art and coding to deal with, remember that he can't do both at the same time. An 8hr day spent modeling a replacement Tu-160 model for example is not 8hrs spent digging for a bug in the code and removing it. And even then, if you're fixing one bug, there's a bunch of others that aren't being fixed simply because the resources can't be split that much. If the time budget allows for 10 bugs to be fixed, and 30 are on the docket... someone has to pick which 10 get fixed, and which 20 have to wait. And the ones they consider more pressing, are not the ones we might consider. How can this be fixed? Well, ED has its people all over the world, so the method by which most dev teams handle it won't work. It's hard to stand over someone tapping your feet at someone when there's a literal ocean separating you two. But I do think that if these guys were having to show progress to us every so often (say, every Monday for the artists, every Thursday for the programmers, or something like that), that might ease some of the tension. Vulcan Now, we all know this is coming. Anyone who's following the Roadmap thread knows this. And it sucks that it's not here yet, and I'm sure many are concerned by this point if it's ever coming. I hold out a bit of faith that it is, and that we're going to see it, if not by the end of this year, than maybe sometime next year. Now, why is it taking so long? That's hard to say. Odds are that due to how old DCS's engine is, it may be possible that the conversion is something that has to be handled slowly. And if the original coders left the company (or worse...) the ones responsible for it now might be stuck reverse-eningeering the original code so they can work Vulcan into it. Either way, I doubt this is a particularly easy task. After all, you can't just flick a switch and release Vulcan. Especially with the 3rd parties being involved as much as they are. Imagine how well that conversation would go... "Hey, next patch we'll be releasing Vulcan next patch, and it'll require you all to modify your modules to fit the new framework" Yeah, I imagine that will go swimmingly. So I imagine that Vulcans approach is akin to walking a tightrope. ED has to make sure that it'll work with all of the existing modules with little or no difficulty on day-one. And that is most certainly not going to be an easy feat. It's also entirely possible, stepping back to the bugs for a second, this might be why some of the bugs that exist haven't been squashed yet: Vulcan is needed to forever kill them. In closing, I just hope you guys are all having a decent time in your virtual fighter planes. ED's come a long way, and they still have a ways to go. So let's show'em our support. Remember... Fly Safe

I would really love the Salute animation for launching off the carrier be put in the game for the hornet just like how it is for the tomcat. We know the hornet already has a salute animation of some sort already in game, because we have seen several promo videos from ED on youtube showing the hornet piloting saluting and shooting off the cat. I personally love seeing the pilot salute from F2 view and the mirror reflections on the tomcat, it really adds more depth of immersion to the sim. Thanks!

relax, the tower is probably just WIP atm.

Don't use the pointing cross to set AOA - where your nose is pointing has nothing to do with your AOA, as this is determined by the angle between your wing chord line and the relative airflow - you could be pointing straight up with your cross on 90 and still have 0 AOA if your speed is fast enough! Just set the FPM indicator using the 'AOA indicator' staple on your HUD, and by all means use the AOA indexer lights to the left if you like, you have another AOA indicator on your ctr panel also. Just after some reference to RL Viper pilots and publications - ideally you approach with the FPM at top of staple, and as you go to idle and flare with FPM at far end of runway, FPM moves to middle of staple for touchdown. But you can approach at mid-staple if you really want to - you don't need to, but hey - see if you can scrape that exhaust can as you flare Also prob a bit dramatic to say "Aerobraking is ineffective below 10-11 degrees" - as you can see I held a lazy 9 degrees, barely wheelbraked, and stopped EASILY Glad it helped . Viper really is easy-mode to land once you get the hang of it. Much more finesse than those Navy goons!

Yes there is no change. I still have the issue too.

Glad to help ... if anyone wants to convert their liveries png files themselves this is the program I use, it's really very easy to use and conversion to dds is simple, and it's free. All you have to do is drag and drop the png file into the prog and select save as dds, then save it as BC3 (Linear, DXT5), with Perceptual set and that's it, you now have a dds 5 texture file. . Drop Paint Net into your browser and download the free version, anyone needing a little help making it work or advice on the other stuff you can do with it just ask, I'll help if I can.

Agreed. The snail like changes in development, and the antiquated and archaic setup we currently have reminiscent of windows 98. I think very much for this reason we see such an alarming lack of content for DCS when it comes to quality missions and campaigns, when against the backdrop of how long these modules have been out. some for several years but only maybe 1 or 2 campaigns, and a handful of approved creators. First hand I can account the insane amount of work it takes just to make one mission set, and upkeep to keep then running and functioning every successive update. The ME and a Dynamic campaign system are really the elephant in the room imo that need to be addressed to curb the module burnout and interest plateau. That's part of the reason why we see the "ED Gib us this _____ as the next aircraft module", as there is such a lack of content / campaigns / MP campaigns of quality that really keep people engaged, so they want to jump to the next shiny new thing as a way to bridge the gap. Shrike.

Just was about to watch this. It's Anthony, so this mentioning doesn't surprise me that much anymore. It's been said by Linus at some point that he even is watching Growling Sidewinder's channel sometimes. But I always like when DCS gets mentioned on channels with a larger audience which also has been the case multiple times aready on the RTFM Show on JayzTwoCents' channel. He also had an A-10 wallpaper going for quite some time during the pandemic

I have not tried eddy's yet, will do tonight. For me, eight's files improved performance and to my eyes the readability was almost the same as the original ... check my videos above.

The AN/APQ-120 is a pulse radar and it displays the raw returns (with little filtering). You will need to distinguish between ground clutter and actual targets. The AI (range setting) goes up to 50 nmi, inside AI range you can make an STT lock provided the return is large enough. The manual even reports the ability to spotlight (manually guide the antenna) targets even further, the range scale goes all the way up to 200 nmi.

+1 Can confirm.

...it adds another layer of immersion - you dont want to miss anymore if you get used to it - no impact on FPS - I can recommend it 100%

Я ничего не знаю про реализацию облаков. Но наверняка там острая балансировка качество/производительность. Как то читал ветки форумов гражданских симов, где разные отдельные кампании разработчиков платных дополнений облаков остро конкурировали с друг с другом и общались с игроками как сделать лучше. Мнения игроков разделялись кардинально, споры не затихали никогда. Все ждали счастья как коммунизма, но за пару лет я там счастья так и не увидел. И перестал читать.

Sorry, link updated.

Well, there's one thing DCS and WT have in common: they're both full of obsessive rivetcounters who have to be restrained from sharing classified data by forum rules. They look similar because they're both modern games featuring real hardware. Of course it's going to look similar, if we're both working off the same, real thing, at some point the appearances are going to converge as they get closer and closer to reality. Modern 3D rendering is well past that convergence point, even ArmA3 videos had frequently been mistaken for real battlefield footage (in fact, one quite reputable publication used a screenshot from ArmA2 to illustrate MV-22's safety record), and it doesn't look quite as good as DCS does.

Я бы отдельно ещё вывел в закреп тему о настройке и подключении VR систем. Но нужно написать мини-статью-мануал кому-то хорошо поднаторевшему на настройке всяких там опенХР

WT is a massively multiplayer online game for Windows, MacOS, Linux, PlayStation, Xbox. DCS... not. They share the fact that planes look very similar to their real-world counterparts which should not be surprising. That being said, 3D models are a dime a dozen. What makes or breaks the game is not as much how things look, but how they behave - beyond their looks. And that is quite different for both titles. Note that I'm NOT saying either is better, merely that they are different. Very different.

The problem with quoting uplifts is around the question of where, and with what settings. Shadows, other aircraft and Cluster Ammunition punish the CPU If you are doing free flight over water somewhere in the middle east, you aint likely going to get a boost even with a 3600X as you are 100% GPU bound. However doing a fully populated carrier deck startup will easily double performance Either way. If you are on an AM4 platform it's the easiest $300ish upgrade with the most bang for buck you are going to get

See if this works. Keep your eye on the white shirt to the left and then the yellow shirt directly in front of you. Any hookup on the supercarrier will show the problem. Jittery deck crew.trk

I saw around 25% uplift going from R5 3600@4.3Ghz all core to the 5800x3D, this was with my 3070. Also using an MSI max board, specifically a mortar and had no issues with the CPU following a bios update.

We need to establish the parameters of tests in order to do so. I am fairly positive that the effects on fuel states and external configurations aren't lost on you. So what kind of fuel fraction are we talking about here? Higher ones would favor the F-14, lower ones would favor the F-18. Also, are we aiming for equal fuel fractions or equal times in burner? I'm not sure how most dogfight servers handle this, but i've seen both. And finally, the F-14 always has her pylons on and they are factored into the total drag of the airframe. Are we demanding the same of the F-18 as well, or is she going to completely sleek? Next, like in the "how to beat the Hornet in the Viper with the new flight model" topic, we need to establish the metrics we are testing. Total lift available, as in max ITR? Max sustained rate? Bleed rates at a given g? If so at what g? Recovery rates at a given g? If so, at what g? In the above mentioned topic, the Hornet dominated the Viper (back when i did the tests) in practically all the metrics except for the low g energy recovery, which translated to the Viper jock has very little chance unless the Bug driver gave it to him/her. And this was only for one fuel state. I'm sure we can do the same for the F-14 and the F-18 if can come to some consensus on what we are testing.

I'm sad to read this but I understand and respect your decision. This server was my introduction to DCS, thanks to the very dedicated and friendly playerbase I was able to learn a lot and I honestly wouldn't have become such a sim addict without it. It wasn't easy to start on this server for a new player like me but having to learn how to navigate, stay hidden, fight and play as a team was the complete package no other server could offer. The time and effort you put in the missions and scenarios will always impress me and I'll miss the intensive fights both in the air and on the ground it provided. I haven't been able to play for some time due to me moving an ocean away from home but I truly hope to hear from you and the Alpen's CW chads. Thank you Alpen, take care !

Razbam already implemented this for their DCS M-2000C module where it's called TAF. It integrates with the LotAtc software so human controllers can give mission assignments to human pilots via data link. They also implemented a AI GCI which can be added in the mission editor and which gives the player mission assignments based on EWR line-of-sight. So it's definitely possible and it would be amazing if the DCS F-16C and other L16 capable modules got this feature as well.

And there is more with the F1EQ: - BGL 1000 (french laser guided bomb) -KH29L (russian air-ground missile like AS30L)

Вообще не понятно, почему в игру не добавляют женских персонажей. На них же приятней смотреть, чем на обрюзгшее мужичьё. Вон посмотрите какие симпатяшки на палубе на авианосцах в реале присутствуют (с 4:44): https://youtu.be/Qe8Zs5Cr4GI?t=284 Вот пару кадров из видео:

Checksix Discord news https://discord.com/channels/974874076977967124/974889495587594321/1038364046728122368

Пожелание: не ограничиваться только Хэлловином. На день всех влюблённых, заместо скелетов, вот таких сигнальщиц включите.

Happy Halloween everyone!

Not sure which one I I I want more...

And while you're adding that, UNDO and REDO, please. Accidentally deleting an object and having to recreate it from scratch is a PITA.