Leaderboard

Kiowa over South Atlantica - WIP

@BIGNEWY I found the issue, but it very looks like it is caused by how DCS works (or in that case not correctly works) with fxo's: .) I did empty the fxo folder and metashaders2 before doing anything .) Then I start DCS .) "Display resolution" in the SYSTEM settings was set to 256 .) After reaching the first mission, the fxo's were all created .) It seems the WPN page is then rendered at that certain resolution (in my case at the "lowest - bad setting" of 256 for a very long time since I fly the F-16, because I struggle with fps since ever especially when I fly with TGP and MAV's and using them in parallel) .) I then selected 1024 in the SYSTEM settings, but: The fxo's seem not to be updated anymore; I had to delete fxo's for each change of the SYSTEM settings. Ah, and by the way: I had to use the current OB 2.8.0.33006, since I update a few days ago. Side story: The problem with the crosshair is gone, I now managed to see the crosshair with MSAA set to OFF. Hope this helps someone out there, but at least I hope you guys at ED will correct this problem somehow (which drove me crazy). Thanks, TOViper

Hi, The Viper damage modelling is a WIP and it's understandable. But please increase the priority of this task. Currently almost every hit will results in fuel leakage (I've even had one after an aircraft collided with me during taxi on a MP server). It makes it very painful and annoying fighting other A/C in DCS that can sustain much more damage (they'll have system malfunctions when hit but not necessarily a fuel leak). In MP, after the enemy hit you - they'll just bug out or start "wasting time" knowing that you've got 30 sec left until you out of fuel. Thanks!

As someone who doesn't browse Reddit as frequently as here, here is the post from Cobra from Reddit: "Release dates and our timelines are frequently memed here; sometimes for good reason, but we made our 2022 announcement with extreme confidence at the start of the year. This was based in having already spent a year developing the Phantom and growing our team into a full-time, professional outfit. We're spending a lot of money developing our DCS modules, past and present currently and no-one wants to release our next flagship earlier than me, trust me on that. No measure of good planning could have predicted a huge chunk of our art production manpower to disappear overnight due to Russia invading Ukraine, and that I would be out of action for two months due to a family tragedy. To say it's been a tough and outright chaotic year is an understatement and a half. We've increased spending significantly and hired more people than planned this year to make up for lost time, but even at a full sprint and standing on the gaspedal only gets you so far. A benefit to this is of course that we'll be better equipped to tackle future challenges. Apologies for the "non-answer" as to a specific timeline update, the situation remains dynamic enough for me to avoid offering a public committal. We're burning the candle at both ends to revert to the intended timeline. The power grid situation in Ukraine just this week is yet another factor that just popped up, uncertainty is ever-present currently. To offer some detail on the Phantom itself- it's that we are working to make DCS: F-4E a step up in every way. We're going deeper and more detailed than we have ever done before, across both core and base systems (hyd, electrical, etc.) all the way to the frontend (Radar, JESTER v2, etc.). For our next slew of aircraft we've developed our "NextGen" core- which completely revamped every single part of our codebase and we're developing to a diligence and detail that is quite novel. We want to go beyond the F-14 and further ourselves and our products as much as economically feasible. Overall, and most importantly, thank you for the interest and being excited though. No matter how tough this year has been- getting a legendary module of a legendary aircraft in your hands is all the motivation we need to power through." -Cobra8472 Its unfortunate that its most likely not going to release this year but this gives a lot more clarity as to what is going on with the project and the company as a whole.

This little package contains a Bell Longranger L3 type helicopter model with some liveries. This is only AI and has only some basic animations, PBR textures and no damage model or weapons. It also has some model and texture fixes to be made, but it takes forever and so I thought I might as well release it before waiting another 6 months...I made this for myself to gain/improve some skills in 3D modelling, texturing and lua scripting, and because I like to get more civil Helicopter OPs into DCS. Tested with DCS 2.7.8. UPDATES: current version: 0.1 - liveries pack provided by @Urbi (not available anymore) - liveries pack provided by @crazyeddie (separate link see "ADDONS") DOWNLOAD: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7yt7rbqgol495ei/Bell_206-L3 AI.zip?dl=0 INSTALL: Unzip the package. 1. Copy the content of "Liveries" into your "Saved Games/DCS/Liveries" folder. 2. Copy the content of "tech" into your "Saved Games/DCS/Mods/tech" folder The package includes a basic livery template. ADDONS: - @crazyeddie provides a beautiful new liveries package, download here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/n82g1x6485p3hjg/crazyeddies_Bell 206 Liveries.zip?dl=0 CREDITS: This mod was inspired through the work from Upuat, EightBall, Nibbylot and Damientrix. I used some snippets of lua-scripts from each of these authors and modified them for this project, as I did prior to my HH-60 mod. The 3D model of the helicopter was downloaded from GrabCad and it is allowed to be used for royalty free usage and distribution. The author of the original CAD model is Mr. John Fall, and I am grateful he allows this model to be used for free and appreciate his beautiful CAD work. I made a lot of changes to the original model though, and had to import it into my 3D environment with a number of tedious conversions. Finally, thanks to Urbi and Crazyeddie who reworked textures and provided additional (and enhanced) liveries. Anyway, I hope you like it. Have CIVIL fun!

nullAccording to the real manual, ''minimum turn time'' is achieved with IAS 300kts, i17degr, max AB and ~4g. In game the best sustained speed is around 400kts. Is there a bug, wip of the FM or is the term ''minimum turn time'' something different than STR (perhaps ITR)? Have talked with several people and got different answers, so perhaps someone from Aerges could clarify this, that's why the post here. And is this achieved with or without combat flaps (not clarified in the manual)? Thx

It does not look like a bug, with GBU-12's releasing into the wind or with a crosswind and against a moving target you need to lead the target otherwise it will land short. A Point track will not do this automatically for you, you have to manually estimate the lead and hold the crosshairs in front of the target. Here is an example. 10 knot target with a 20 knot wind at altitude, 10 knot wind at the surface. I estimate a designation/SPI well in front of the target to ensure the bomb has enough energy, and then when lasing estimate 1-2 vehicle lengths is enough, the bomb lands ~1 meter or less from the back of the target which is close enough to destroy it, should have lead it a little bit more for a perfect impact. GBU-12's do not have any capability to pull their own lead and will sag and get curved off course by the wind, you must manually correct for this. Moving wind.trk If this is too difficult or complicated, a GBU-54 will pull its own lead and compensate for the winds, it is a much smarter bomb than the GBU-12. A GBU-24 will also do this. Moving wind 24.trk Moving wind 54.trk

An "AIM-54" did reach Mach 5... sort of. The Mach 5 figure comes from here: NASA's plan to use an F-15 to launch hypersonic Phoenix missiles - Sandboxx But when you read just how many modifications NASA made to the missile to get it to reach Mach 5 you start to understand just how little this test missile has in common with a US Navy fleet missile. All of the internal components related to the missile’s guidance system and explosive payload were completely removed, including its guidance computer and radar tracker, leaving just its propulsion and control sections at the rear of the missile intact a new nose with slightly more sloping angles was added to what would now be primary and secondary payload sections with the same 15″ diameter as the original components. The primary payload section measured about 57 inches long and, based on the weight of the guidance section it replaced, could carry approximately 184 pounds worth of testing equipment. It's an AIM-54 in name only. Then there's the flight profile - the fact that the launch was committed at Mach 2 and that the missile was not required to make any steering corrections as it had no target widens the gap between it and a fleet Phoenix; there's so little in common here with an operational launch of an AIM-54 that it might as well be a completely different missile.

They have a tendency for starting new projects before finishing the old. Problem is that we already paid full.

Update on the status of my desk pit. had to re work the lighting panel to be able to easily mount the rotary wheels, getting close to just working on the electronics. Everything is mounted, but nothing wired up. Mostly happy with the aesthetics of everything. I'm going to try to print the switch caps in TPU so they can stretch a little, the ones I printed previously are very brittle and have been cracking when I try to take them off the old button boxes I had them on.

if you watch lots of ariel refueling videos when the boom is disconnected or the probe detaches from the basket you can always see a little cloud of fuel that sprays out and I think it would be a easy but realistic implementation to the already amazing sim. little clip if your unsure what I'm on about

ED stands for Extended Delays

1. CIVILIAN ASSETS PACK - NAUTICAL v2.1 DOWNLOAD v2.1 Content, installation, credits, etc: README.pdf If you have downloaded v2.0, it appears the armed trawler isn't engaging targets. Download this lua, place it in "\Civilian Assets Pack - Navy v2.0\Database\CAP Ships" and overwrite. for those who wish, here is the "unpimped" version of the ships (no girls in bikini). Grab the edm files, drop them in the mod "Shapes" folder and overwrite. CrazyEddie made 6 additional liveries for the J.R. More Tug, be sure to check them out! 2. DCS: COMBINED FARMS Link to thread 3. CIVILIAN ASSETS PACK - VEHICLES V1.0 DOWNLOAD v1.0 20 vehicles (including variants) and 1 static object (shown in the picture above). Goes in the ...\Saved Games\DCS\Mods\tech folder. In the mission editor the vehicles can be found under ground units --> civilian vehicle --> CAP - "..." A showcase mission with all the vehicles is included. DEMO mission demonstrating the ability to turn the lightbar on and off with the spacebar: CAP VEHICLES - Lights Toggle Spacebar Addtional liveries by CrazyEddie: DOWNLOAD Many thanks to @tobi for the .edm exporter for Blender ALL VEHICLES ARE COMPATIBLE WITH COMBINED ARMS Some vehicles have animated drivers, others don't Some vehicles have destroyed models, others don't Some vehicles have LODs, others don't No rhyme nor reason to it, just depends on how lazy I was that particular day...Harmonisation is planned for a future update. Customisable lightbar reflectiveness/brightness through liveries (only for the police cars at this time): CUSTOMISATION FOR SOME VEHICLES: Extra liveries by CrazyEddie (separate download) PICTURES: And more --------------------------------------- Old post (these vehicles will be upgraded soon...or later...):

Just had a sour experience in an MP server where I managed to hit an enemy AI Apache with 2 Vikhr missiles but it carried on flying and was combat effective enough to then shoot me down with a Hellfire in 1 shot. This seems fairly reproducible if you set up a simple 1v1 mission with the player in the Kamov and an AI in the Apache. I'm no expert on weapon damage but I doubt the Apache should eat 2 ATGMs and still be airborne. Seen the same thing happen with Hinds also. Seen when firing head on.

See tracks attached. There is no way to toss the bombs due to the symbology in the HUD being very strange. Track Mk84Air_1: As soon as the Fuse setting is changed, the HUD instantly shows the Toss Anticipation Cue, despite being very far away from the Target. Cycling the Fuse over and over reproduces this weird behavior. After that, a normal CCRP can be flown, level delivery the bomb hits. BUT: just before the Weapon release, the HUD again shows the solid circle for the Toss Anticipation cue Also in this track i could not for the life of me move the TGP. you can see the TGP having a seizure when i try moving it. Track Mk84Air_2: Same as above, but here i could move the TGP. now the funny thing: when entering point track, area track or pressing CZ, the HUD instantly shows the Toss Anticipation cue. The rest is as in the previous track. As comparison, Track Mk84 shows that everything seems to work fine with the normal Mk84. I have only encountered this with Mk84Air. I have not tested DTOS or CCIP, so i dunno if there is any strange HUD stuff going on there. Mk84Air_1.trk Mk84Air_2.trk Mk84.trk

GM-1 make literaly no sense for F-8, F-8 used the real C3 injection for boosting up to something like 2000m, GM-1 is for high altitude from 8000m or you know something I would be really interested in. Personnally I have no problems downing 51, spitfire or 47, the A-8 is beast, many people will tell you it's a bad fighter, for me it's the best, you need discipline to fight in it but I agree that many people think the boost will change something, spoiler alert : it will change nothing if you don't fly it correctly and I agree on the fact that it isn't the magical solution, the boost came 1 month after 150 octane so it came juste to compensate it. I wish the boost because it's a feature that should be in the sim and is a missing part of the A-8 (and other things mentioned) and many people (me included) are disappointed about lack of caring on some WWII stuff and it begins with the lack of rather "basic" features

If the threat level is low-medium there is no other aircraft on the planet that can kill as effectively and efficently than the Warthog. If you're into A-G then this module is a must have! It outstanding HOTAS and sensor integration give it incredible situational awareness and sensor-to-shoot capabilities.

I can see I'm not the only disappointed with the A-8, sadly no changes will be braught in the near future... It's clearly a half baked module... Any fans of the Anton would be surprised (disappointed) to see all the missing features : kit R2, R8, removal of wing canons, boost, bubble canopy like D9 maybe (not the most important in my opinion) it's like making a F-18 without AGM65 or AIM7... and it's even more frustrating because I know DCS is capable of doing these little details and it's what made DCS incredible, the details... But it's the WWII problem and will problably remain the same

Das mit der Lizenz ist nicht richtig. Die wenigsten DCS Module haben eine offizielle Lizenz vom Hersteller. Der UH-1H is da eine Außnahme, ich meine sogar der Eurofighter wird das erste 3rd party fixed wing Modul, das mit einer Lizenz vom Hersteller kommt. Ansonsten klar, natürlich kein Selbstläufer. Vertrag mit ED braucht es in jedem Fall, eine NDA das die Modder das SDK nicht weiter geben, usw. Aber nicht unmöglich. Vielleicht als goodie fürs 10 Jährige Jubiläum der Mod... Die sind ja echt seit Jahren konstant dran an dem Ding. Oder ED macht mal ne Außnahme und sagt ihnen zumindest hier und da wie es besser ginge, damit sie bspw. sowas wie die AGM-62 noch machen könnten. Fände ich schon einen nicen move von ED.

Ich glaube wir machen uns da viel zu viele Gedanken. Wahrscheinlich haben ED einfach nur ihre "Regeln" etwas lockerer ausgelegt...

good one Zach,,,ED should hire you to do their ww2 warbird bug fixes. then i would be confident of accurate progress materializing in a timely fashion.

Dang after getting my Aero and selling my G2 a few months later I am almost tempted to pick another one up at this low price - just to have it. Naw, I still got too many headsets. And can't see myself not using my Aero unless something happens to it. But that is a fantastic price for an equally fantastic headset.

A-4 made it in to ED's Autumn DCS sale video... Any thoughts on this? Have they ever included a Mod in a video?

Bomb on coordinate with NO JDAMS? No problem! Drop the laser guided munition via coordinates into the "laser basket" and watch the JTAC lase that weapon in. Cleared HOT!!!

„two weeks“(tm)

In theory it should be a simple little addition, given that many of the aircraft have fuel-dump capability already, and that creates a nice stream behind the aircraft. So in theory, this same thing could be done, even if it's just a simple and short particle effect.

I figured it was evil forces at work that make air to air refueling so difficult for me.

OK this conversation is done, it is not going anywhere.

@corbu1Thanks! V2.0 is up see first post I'm also running a small server to showcase the pack Required mods are v2.0 of my asset pack, the AH-6j and UH-60L Available aircraft are: all the default helos + AH-6j and the UH-60L, the CE II and the yak-52. No weapons, no jets

Why would players on a monitor not see these effects? That statement doesn’t make sense.

I really hate this off topic. But let me put it that way. In case the performance drop once will be carried out to stable branch, if ED cant eliminate the reasons here in open beta, then I would consider DCS being split in two branches rather useless. If the performance drop stays in OB only, this would be the perfect proof that the concept of stable+beta is made use to full extent. Lets wait and see what happens over time to the stable version. In the meantime people in OB are the ones who feed the developers with testing data.

No, I think this checks out. I just assumed that the burble effect sucking you down would be on regardless of the tick box. As it's quite a different thing from aircraft wake turbulence, I thought this was completely separated. I thought I felt that down draft, in a nice way, after the burble was implemented, but I guess it was placebo then. --- As a sidenote, I never fly with wake turbulence on because of the unpolished state of it. In DCS a fighter can flip another fighter of equal size over if #2 flies through #1's air 20 seconds later, making an ordinary 4-ship overhead break with 5 second break intervals about the most dangerous things you can do in the game, which is not representable of real-life aircraft of fighter jet size. It's a shame, because certain aspects of the wake turbulence feel great! The tech is absolutely impressive, but would need massive tweaking. A nice quick and non-controversial solution (to avoid the debate), would be to change the setting from an on/off tickbox, to a 0.0-1.0 slider, setting the intensity of the turbulence. Ideally a similar one to scale how long the wake turb hangs around before it fades out. But I guess this is something for the DCS wishlist section.

Just for reference (not that this is proof or indicative of how many women/girls play DCS, but it is a general indication of audience) which is all I have to go on, but more than you provided and lets be clear, I stated an opinion and expressed the idea that I may be wrong, you made a statement that would appear as fact. Here is a DCS video from my channel with 80,000 views: thats 80,000 to zero

Except SAU not working properly, ARU not even in slightest way working properly, Radar much to efficient at low altitude, Strangely modeled elevator behavior at high altitudes (over 15 000m) pulling hard with ARU in manual mode set in position "Take off" (strangely it's also the same position in "Auto" mode on these altitude) gives slight, gentle turn with about 2G. Plane is able to sustain 9,8 G (it was reduced couple months ago from previous bigger value). However many MiG-21 pilots reported exceding G over "11" without damaging a plane in DCS MiG sustain just 9,8G. If you pull 8,5 G crazy ARU may cause exceding G to over 10 and brake your... Wing tips (sic!) instead of bending your wing, but it's ok. You can fly (and land) MiG-21 without wings anyway. Other case is gyro sight - switch positions give different effect as expected: in pure Gyro mode only 300m range works as expected, auto ranging works different as expected (based on original flight instruction), A2G mode - shooting unguided rockets with rdr ranging and gyro gives also wind correction -> way too acurate, A2G bombing sight is a pure fantasy. It gives you precise hit point for FAB's with wind correction. A ballistic table For manual bombing with various dive angles and sight deflection angles doesn't exist. Also MiG-21 Cluster bombs are able to kill every server since I play DCS, Letherneck / Magnitude never attempted to correct these issues. Engine flames out after exceding 1300KIAS which is a total fantasy (and explanation given in DCS manual is made-up total fiction. It doesn't fit liquid mechanic, or jet engine behavior). Speed shall be limited by loosing longitudinal/directional stability and there is a proper description how it works in real MiG-21. And "the devs " are well aware about it. Modelling a proper behavior is too much effort i suppose? Engine flame out (due to over-speeding) is pure fiction (and a lie). If you report any problem the answer is "It's old module so we're not supporting it - in fact you shall be graceful for everything we make around it anyway. You shall not expect any support for an oldest DCS module. Currently all resources are directed towards F-4U anyway. No MiG-21 major updates before F-4U release." Except that, it's a legendary plane, and most neglected module in DCS With my best regards Kermit

ED Shorts

Thanks a lot, I love having more red force aircrafts .. and these look really great, can't wait to use them on a mission I'm looking forward to seeing you add even more aircrafts to your collection .. hopefully something more cold war appropiate, like the Il-38 May:

Small update to the mod, I've added a net to the contraption used to lift the cow. A wee bit closer to the real thing.

On all versions of JDAM there is an M904 mechanical fuse being shown. This fuse is not allowed to be loaded onto JDAMs IRL, and instead you will most often see a nose plug installed instead. (Needs confirmation, but it looks like Navy prefer the MXU-735 nose plug and air force the short cone shaped one) The solution to this issue is very simple, now that the DrawArg line has been revealed for the aircraft luas. Simple add DrawArgs = {{56, 0.5}} to the Navy jets, and DrawArgs = {{56, 0.4}} for the USAF jets.

Has been fixed internally. Hopefully next OB patch will include MB-339 changes, too.

Yep, you're correct. Download and install the latest version you mentioned, then update the firmware for both your new throttle and CM2 base/stick. I would recommend creating a new profile as occasionally things don't transfer from older software, but try importing your existing profile and see if it's OK.

Ну вот так работает система. Недаром же ее в вирпильской среде распространенно считают пустой тратой диполей и лтц. Куда лучше например, зная что находишься в районе где могут обстрелять из ПЗРК скажем, - при получении сигнала о пуске ракеты отстрелить 6 лтц хаткой CMS вправо и отвернуть от цели. Режим авто например даже вреден в ситуации когда издалека ставит в захват система ПВО большой дальности, а тут под боком появился ПЗРК. Естественно система будет отрабатывать противодействие дальней угрозе, не обращая внимание на более опасный ПЗРК. Полуавтомат по той же причине не всегда полезен

In the BVR menu in the STT section jamming targets will be listed. Simply select one and tell him to lock it.

Please keep the discussion on DCS World, you may use your real world experiences in the explanations of your issues, but we are not modelling other games, we are modelling real life the best we can. While not everything is perfect, we are striving to do so, will it happen over night? No, will it happen in two weeks? No, but we are working as hard as we can to build the best flight and combat simulation we can. If you see issues, please make proper bug reports with evidence if you want to help change things, if you are just burned out there is nothing wrong with taking a break. We plan on being here a very long time. Thanks.

why would I be joking? you claimed "There are quite a lot of women/girls flying at DCS". I'm sure you wouldn't make such a statement without some sort of information in regards to it. Personally, I doubt it, but I don't know this for a fact. If you do, I'd like to be shown otherwise. I'd consider it pretty interesting if that was fact. Where do you get the idea that there are "quite a lot of women/girls flying at DCS"?

IRL the F/A-18 has more modern avionics, and the F-15E generally has better performance overall. In DCS The Razbam DCS F-15E will likely be simulated much better than the DCS F/A-18C. The F-15E will have better: A/A Radar simulation (simulates range and doppler space) SAR simulation RWR simulation (example: AV-8 has better simulated ALR-67 than the F/A-18C) The DCS F/A-18C gets a lot of the nuanced details wrong (ex MSI logic, RWR logic, Radar GMT/MAP, TPOD targeting, etc.). I would go with the F-15E, personally.

VBH External done !

After watching the video below, I would still prefer this over F-4 (don’t hit me)