Leaderboard

The F-16 manual revision is over halfway finished, including well over 100 pages of new content. A preview of 4 new pages is not indicative of the totality of progress. The person doing the F-16 manual isn't the only one writing manuals, just the one that is responsible for a few of the aircraft, like the F-16, F-18 and A-10C.

18:03 "I can't see the ship. It's too grey. [...] see the centerline". Ha! So those of us who thought that the centerline was too hard to spot were not crazy after all.

DCS World Open Beta 2.8.0.33006 Bug: If you loose engine - either by shutting it off, running out of fuel or whatever, and subsequently EPU activates - the INS looses alignment and you loose all inertial reference in the HUD ( ADI remains fine). To reproduce: 1. Enter a turn ( e.g. 30° bank ) 2. Set throttle to Idle detent to shut it off 3. Notice the EPU automatically activate. 4. Notice HUD ladder mis-align. [ Expected result should be that INS integrity is maintained ] An engine-out should not trigger a total INS failure. Trackfile attached. Example (old) hud video from the 80's showing an actual engine-out. epu_ins.trk

A few liveries for the JR Moore Tugboat, all generic so you can add anything you like to the funnels, the hull and superstructure sides are mirror images so unsuitable for adding names etc. Simply drop the file into the Liveries folder. I have included a Default livery to replace the one in the Mod, for some weird reason the default wont show up in the ME drop downs when you have other liveries, it needs the actual texture files in order to work properly. https://www.dropbox.com/s/aod9tf89vyswnn4/jr-more.zip?dl=0

@Geschirre I would like to address this "Elephant in the room!" Some points to consider. 1) I do appreciate the interest in my creat6ions. It inspires me to make more! 2) I also understand your points. Many share them! 3) Way back, Six tears ago or so, I began this journey making assets to enhance and expand my enjoyment of this Masterpiece called DCS World. At that time, I made them for myself only. I did not share my work except with a few fellow modders and friends. At one point, I began to get requests to share with all here. As I was good friends with markindel a Max master who taught me, i suggested to him I re- post his mods, using good English, (he is Italian) I would add my own. It has grown to way too many mods to manage! I am a ONE man team! A "Army of one" You guys are my "test team" LOL As I never intended to share them I did very little up-dates other than to make sure they were at least usable in sim, Although perhaps not with every "feature" working in all cases. For my original use, I did not care. 4) That being said, I am not adverse to fixing and making improvements if the interest is there. I welcome all suggestions, and complaints with a open mind. I have a thick skin, to match my skull! 5) At the end of the day, I am still a newb with max. Many have much more talent than I. I muddle through! 6) Most, if not all my mods use pre made models. Not my work Many come with textures matching the models. I will up scale them as needed but no higher than 4k. The rest I do my best with my meager skills! So, in closing, now the Elephant has been fed! The model posted above came with textures. I up scaled them is all The edits done. I do try to make them look good. I never intended them to have new skins made, Although I do like the idea! If any wish to help, and use max, I am willing to share that as well! All help will be acknowledged.. Send a PM. Credit where due. We all want the same. A great DCS to fly in! Thanks to all for the kind words and support! Cheers!

Coming Soon - a few bits more to do - plus a couple more variations - link will be on here in due course:

Some major things that I picked up from skimming the podcast: - They've gone past the development milestone "which puts it in a position that [RAZBAM] can be pretty certain that it's going to the user's hands and [a] really really really close term" (16:09-16:38) but Ron refrained from disclosing a specific release date or month or timeframe. - What not to expect for EA is the TFR, some A/G radar modes, and some weapons (44:17-44:36) I suggest listening the podcast for yourself since the two points I just listed are of course just two snippets from a 47 minute long podcast and there is definitely a lot more interesting stuff said that I didn't include.

Hello pilots and friends. We've been working on real time lighting and improving terrain textures, a couple of screenshots of progress:

The AIM-120 does not consistently acquire a flanking target on active, even when the missile is fully supported through the entire midcourse stage. The missile never acquires the target even though it is being provided datalink updates from the parent aircraft. 120_naq.trk 120_naq2.trk 120_naq.acmi 120_naq2.acmi

Regardless where you put it, make sure you have dust filters AND..or they are useless, an OVERPRESSURIZED system. That means, you always need to push in more air ( through the filters, than your exhaust fans pull out. That way, all air inwards is filtered and air escapes outward through all those little openings and holes everywhere. If you suck out more air than you push in, you will suck in unfiltered air from every one of those holes and openings. Putting it on the floor is not a good idea, with pets and tiled floors dust will kill your PC. Floors with carpet are better but still no good idea. Mine is on my, rather large, table.

I recently bought a small metal 4 tier shelf from home depot, and put the system on that, and spaced the shelves so I can put the APC Unit and External HDD's directly under the PC, and a top shelf for anything on display, and a bottom shelf for accessories (extra PSU cables, etc etc etc). I found having the tower on the desk makes it susceptible to damage from motion, as my HOTAS and / or steering wheel is mounted to the desk, so sudden movements make the PC Move as well,, before I put up the 4 tier shelf, I used a small night stand, but realized quickly with the APC and external drives, I needed to get more shelf space in a small area.

I place all of my PCs over the desk .. for one, it's much easier to plug rear cables when needed, and second, they pickup less dust than when on the floor ... .. and third, the likelyhoof of kicking them is greatly reduced

mine goes in the cat litter tray.

through my years as an IT guy i have learned that putting the pc on the floor can pick up lots of dust. especially if there are pets involved. i have mine on the desk. with that said, if you have to have it under the desk, put it on something to raise it above the floor. the further up, the better. either place does not necessarily mean lesser airflow. it all about having access to the fans without anything in front.

Thank you, but now that we have a short SP track in the hands of the devs, I guess there's no need for more proof.

You need a specific connector for the driver point of view, which needs to be part of the 3D model. IIRC you will be able to make a ship drivable even if that connector is missing but the driver's view will be somewhere inside the model. So you'll be limited to the external view.

I know what notching is. A quick look at the tacview shows that the relative angle is around 50 degrees; nowhere near enough to notch the missile. Not to mention this test was performed over water, which effectively prevents notching as of 2.8.

couldnt find specifically this reported already when setting dynamic weather, the wind reported in the briefing screen is RE-reversed, i.e. actually correctly reporting FROM direction, whereas "Meteo" now incorrectly indicating TO direction although this is a nice surprise, it is on the other hand making the whole confusion about TO and FROM setting/reporting even bigger. for clarification, with static weather set, "Nav Wind" and "Meteo" would have been reciprocal to what you see in the screenshot to reproduce: load miz attached look at weather in briefing: expected would be TO direction first, followed by "Meteo" with FROM direction take KA50, look at PVI-800 wind/speed (bottom line, middle pushbutton) OR take a look at chimney smoke, results: wind FROM south DYN WX WIND REVERSAL.miz

That was Sierra Hotel!!!!! Lived and breathed every word! Mooch could you have Nasty do a tutorial for the F-14 A. I am learning it right now and would love some feedback from both of you! That blew me away!

To confirm some of the testing above: I have a SAM single mission which I use to try the LD-10 on the JF-17 and also the HARM on the F16 using the HTS pod. Tests done at 35,000 ft and 0.7 Mach. For the LD-10: I can get SAM kills at 40nm in ACT (pre-planned target point) from 35k ft and 0.7 Mach. The missile lofts after launch, giving it good range. Closer range shots seem to be slightly more accurate. The LD-10 does not always hit the radar in the face but lands close enough to kill about 80% of the time. For Passive and self-protect mode launching the LD-10 in level flight at 35k ft and 0.7 Mach only has about 15 to 20nm range as the missile goes straight from the pylon to the target. Kill % a bit lower than ACT mode as it sometimes falls short. Repeating Passive and self-protect mode but raising the nose of the aircraft to about 15 to 20 degrees before launch will loft the missiles in a way that is very similar to the ACT launch, and I get similar ranges and kills to the ACT mode (35 to 40nm and about 80% kill) For the HARM launched from a lock with the HTS pod in the F16: Results are almost identical to those from the LD-10 in ACT mode - 35-40nm, about 80% kill rate. Not every shot igoes to the face of the radar but hits close enough to kill it. So in summary: The LD-10 is at least as effective as the HARM provide you use the correct mode and launch method: Try to set up for ACT (pre-planned) and if you cannot do this remember to angle the nose of the aircraft to 15 to 20 deg before launching in Passive or Self-protect. Longer range shots will have a lower kill rate. Do not forget to equip the jamming pod and have it in standby or jamming mode. It will then move the radar icons on the horizontal situation display to show their actual range and bearing, making estimation of range (and therefore likelihood of impact and kill) far easier. For employment of the LD-10/JF-17 in the SEAD role by using the methods above, I think it is satisfactory. I know others might disagree. I could not find enough difference between the two missiles to consider the LD-10 bugged.

Предлагаю разработчикам вернуться к этому разговору после того, как в ДКС появится какое-то подобие аэродромного ИИ (то, что есть сейчас, им не является). Который будет различать параллельные полосы, подтверждать возможность ILS-захода на выбранную полосу, и транслировать метеосводку. Возможно, проблема разрешится сама собой. Также хотелось бы напомнить о хотелке включать-отключать КГС по триггерам и чекбоксами в редакторе, позволяя авторам самим решать, какой уровень "бардака" они готовы позволить в своих миссиях.

It's not a War thunder!

My liverys of retired Czech Air Force 9804 with his brother 9801, .... after 9801 camouflage color tint and roughmet texture correction.

cough

Less accuracy? Yes definitely. Better yet coupled with less awareness. I find it hardly believable that a tank column (just tanks/APC/trucks, nothing with radar anywhere on the map) can see me approaching from behind/front at 500 kts / 300 ft AGL and react in any coherent manner... This is just how the all-seeing AI works.

This one would need some investment, since a good external model of the F-16A is non-existent in DCS at the moment, but otherwise should be relatively easy to make. A very nicely detailed and textured cockpit model already exists for the F-16A (not in DCS though, it's available for download on the web). For any mod team out there willing to give this a shot, it should be just a matter of investing in a good external model and building standalone avionics in the same way as the A-29B Super Tucano mod, albeit extended to include a simple radar and the ability to interface with and employ AGM-45 and AGM-65IR/TV variants. Flight model would be a bit different from the F-16C currently in DCS, mostly since the F-16A has the P&W F100 and is significantly lighter than the F-16C with the GE F110. Theoretically a simplified version sans radar could be made using A-10A avionics, but this one probably deserves to be standalone.

@SilentGunThanks for relaying Cobra’s message. We can cut a little slack, it was a difficult year for them, and I prefer a delayed full-featured successful release over a hasted half-baked one.

I will just leave these here! Interested? A bit of pylon work is still needed but I could be convinced to release a early WIP version, Will look nice next to the VSN YF-12! As a mater of fact, I have used a modified VSN mod as a base. So credit goes to the VSN team for allowing me to do so! It is Turkey day in the USA I an feeling generous! With enough interest, you could be flying this as player before the sun sets! Your vote counts! Let me know! Have a great dinner! Turkey Stupor here I come!

Removing the outboard wing cannons will probably do more for the Anton as a fighter than the EN boost. Regardless, both options should be available.

Version 1.1.10 Maintenance Update This update brings a number of small enhancements and bugfixes, most of them under the hood. The most important change is that DML now consistently supports quad-point-based zones. The biggest omission was that DML's Zone library did not fully support quad-based zones: it could not reliably generate a random point inside the polygon. As a result, cloneZones's randomized spawns did not correctly support polygonal spawn zones either. After a particularly frustrating re-read of my Analytic Geometry books from high school I realized that I was overthinking the problem, and came up with lightning fast and reliable way to create random points inside a polygon. This I then folded back into DML's zone handling library, and now DML's handling of polygonal zones make them full citizens. And yes, when you now randomly spawn spawn units inside a polygonal trigger zone, all units reliably distribute over the surface of the zone, and all stay inside the zone. Currently I'm working on a possibly big new addition to DML: adding the ability to pass more than integers with flags. This work is entirely experimental, and will work on top of ME, and only in the context of DML and scripts that use DML. And it may not work at all. Currently, I'm merely exploring an extension to DCS's all too limited flags, and it'll be interesting to see if it works - and how it would integrate with DML. The enhanced flags I tentatively named 'Semaphores', for obvious (I hope) reasons. The majority of other changes involve maintenance and bug fixes. Changes Documentation Main - Circular vs. Quad-Point zones - more elaboration Modules Owned Zones 1.2.3 - fixed a bug relating to persistence cfxZones 1.9.2 - quad-point zone support across the board - random point in zone cloneZones 1.6.1 - spawning in polygonal zones - added support for cloned task "search and engage" - added support for new task 'Recovery Tanker' - rndLoc spawn: removed erroneous offset dcsCommon 2.7.10 - semaphore groundwork (experimental) messenger 2.1.1 - (cosmetic only) output suppressed if no text to avoid line in display persistence 1.0.5 - slightly improved sanity checks in readConfig radioMenu 2.0.1 - corrected bug in installMenu for Groups (nod to @GumidekCZ for providing the fix) Enjoy, -ch

I would just like ED to actually finish a product. That's the whole point. A radio has taken them over 2 years to implement, and now coming up on six months since the developer "returned" to it, because it does not pay them anymore to put in the work. It's frustrating from a customer perspective. I don't require them to add more than was slated, just that they don't take eons to achieve what would appear to be a relatively simple task. ED lacks follow through.

Hi everyone, Would it be possible in the future to add some more Cold War era MANPADS? Namely systems such as: 9K32M Strela-2M [SA-7B Grail] - early 70s FIM-43C/D Redeye Block III/IV - late 60s 9K34 Strela-3 [SA-14 Gremlin] - mid 70s FIM-92A Stinger Basic - early 80s FIM-92B Stinger POST - late 80s Blowpipe - mid 70s RBS 70 Mk. 1 - mid 70s Javelin - mid 80s The 9K32M Strela-2M [SA-7B Grail] in particular was/is incredibly prolific, if not probably the most prolific MANPADS, with absolutely tonnes of operators (both former and current) with a lengthy and rich service life in many conflicts around the world. It's also a staple air defence system for Cold War REDFOR. The FIM-43C/D and FIM-92A are more appropriate BLUFOR contemporaries for a Cold War setting. Blowpipe and FIM-92A/B would also fit the South Atlantic map (former used by both sides, latter used by British SOF). EDIT: Now that an Afghanistan map has been formerly announced, the FIM-92A/B and 9K32/32M would also be perfect for Afghanistan missions (where we already have 2 helicopters that more or less fit). Though the Afghanistan map will likely be a modern day one. At the moment we only have the following MANPADS: 9K38 Igla [SA-18 Grouch] (though unsure of the missile used in DCS, though both the Igla and Igla-S fire the same missile, see here) - early 1980s 9K338 Igla-S [SA-24 Grinch] - mid 2000s FIM-92C Stinger RMP (which is also the missile fired by our M1907 Heavy Avenger and M6(A2?) Linebacker) - early 90s So out of all of them it's only really the Igla that fits the Cold War, only it's just a copied Igla-S with a different name as far as I can tell.

This will be a thread with links to each mod I have for Viggen, to hopefully make it easier to find where to download the mods and to find information on what they do. I'll still leave the download links in the threads they already are in, and also post any updates there as well. New Viggen liveries: Liveries that change the splinter camo to a more realistic one. Also added and corrected some of the external details of the aircraft. Passes all IC Cockpit texture mod: This mod is a custom livery and changes the internal cockpit textures with different additions and corrections to them. The result is a cockpit a little closer to what the real deal looks like. Available in a couple versions: Swedish, English. Each have a version that passes script IC, and one that pass both script and texture IC More realistic EP08 This mod changes the appearance of both the HUD and the radar screen to look more like they do in the real aircraft. Changes include color changes and the size and placement of a few symbols This mod does NOT pass texture and script IC More realistic HUD Adds some more realistic limitations of the HUD where you see a more limited area of the HUD. What it does is it simulates the pilot actually having two eyes and giving the FOV each eye would have. Available in both a 2D version for use on a monitor, and a VR version for VR use. Two versions are available one that passes script IC and one that pass both texture and script IC. More accurate Apparat 27 This mod adds and changes RWR sounds to all units with a radar in DCS. The result is a much more dynamic and alive sound. It also corrects the sensor FOV so you get warnings you should be getting This mod is already partially incorporated into the base module, so it no longer has as much of a drastic change as it once did, still recommended though. TLDR: Adds more blips and bloops... This mod does NOT pass script IC EP13 scan line Removes the scan lines on the EP13 screen, and chromatic aberration if wanted. This mod does NOT pass script IC I think that's all of them for the moment

Hi everyone, Currently the F-16's air-to-ground radar has an overexaggerated radial footprint; the radar is able to display everything from basically ownship out to the extremes of the instrumented range and is able to do this regardless of antenna elevation angle (even with the antenna 60° above the horizon) or altitude. Generally speaking, if the aircraft's altitude increases and the antenna elevation angle below the horizon increases, the smaller the footprint that the radar covers. They say a picture speaks a thousand words so here's a diagram, that should more clearly illustrate what I mean: In the F-16CM, the AG radar makes a 1 bar scan, with a bar corresponding to ~5° in elevation (determined through simple trig in the air modes). At an altitude of 20,000 ft, with a 15° look-down angle should give me a patch between ~10 and ~15 nmi. Of course, the radar doesn't just have a mainlobe, it also has sidelobes, so the patch shouldn't abruptly terminate at those values but the brightness will gradually fall off to 0 (exactly how large it should be in total and how much it falls off by will depend on the radiation pattern of the antenna). This can kinda be seen in this video (only here the elevation angle below the horizon is very small and the altitude is ~14,500 ft), you can see that the gain reduces gradually around ~27 nmi and there are no returns closer than 25 nmi (corresponding to an elevation coverage of about 3.5° - well within the range of a 1 bar scan). However, in DCS, the footprint is currently unaffected by both altitude and elevation, leading to it being drastically overexagerrated (and even including areas the radar shouldn't be able to illuminate with its mainlobe). If I'm flying at 20,000 ft I can see everything from 0 - 80 nmi with everything at constant brightness (obviously brightness of specific objects will depend on their RCS), regardless of the elevation angle. In order to do this the radar would have to be able to scan an elevation angle of ~88°, way beyond what the radar should be able to achieve with a 1 bar scan. Incidentally at 20,000 ft it shouldn't even be possible to see returns (apart from sidelobe returns, which should be more dim) inside of ~6 nmi, as the radar's elevation limits are ±60°. Another related issue (not sure if this should be in a different thread) is that the radar doesn't seem to respect the elevation setting that well - if you dial all the gain all the way up and tilt the antenna elevation above the horizon to it's maximum, the image appears like it would normally if I turned the gain down. Go all the way to 60° down and the whole image goes more or less dark, despite the fact that the radar should be illuminating a section with its mainlobe. Essentially the antenna levation setting seems to behave as if it were a 2nd gain setting for the entire image. APG-68_AG_coverage.trk

Alright, the problem WAS indeed with my lack of properly aligning the HMCS and boresighting the Mavs. HMCS align tip: disable Track IR, center the view, zoom in on the HUD, and use numpad slow zoom keys to align the crosses, if you want it as close to perfect as possible (it's also just quicker). Also, I didn't realize AZ / EL and Roll meant using the Radar Cursor X/Y slew knub and not twisting my head around like I'm having a stroke. Is there an F-16 hotkey shortcut that automatically aligns the HMCS and boresights the Mavs? I appreciate the realism here, but there is only so much time I (we all) have in the day. Would rather go through the real procedure once to "note" it, then skip it and spend the time working on other things. I know it's only a few minutes each total, but 10 cold starts... that's 30 minutes. The TM Warthog cursor slew switch is also notoriously twitchy/sensitive - I have the X/Y curves tuned way down. Pics: 1. Result after mav boresighting (also after hmcs alignment). The mav cross is skewed slightly left, and same result after a few boresight tries. However, WAY better than before. When I deselect the TGP and slew it (or maybe CZ it), then the Mav cross seems to align near perfect (See Pic 3). Note: The HUD TDC box is skewed slightly left, but WAY better than before. 2. Now zoomed in HUD TDC from Pic 1. Note the box is slightly skewed left of where TGP point track is looking (assume this is just the imperfect nature of the HUD TDC / parallax etc.) 3. After Pic 1 -- after undesignating / moving the TGP (and maybe CZing too?), then moving TGP back on, the Mav seeker cross seems to align near perfectly. 4. Zooming in, the HUD TDC is still slightly skewed left of where the TGP and Mav are looking. Again, WAY WAY better than before. Again, assuming this is just the imperfect nature of the HUD TDC / HMCS / parallax etc. Are these the alignment results you guys are getting? Would laser ranging w/ TGP tighten up the HUD/HMCS boxes? I imagine IRL, the HUD box and HMCS box will never be spot on like the TGP. I suppose to reduce this offset and get a more accurate mark point using the HUD / HMCS box, you just need to be as close as possible to the target. Makes sense -- if you're 100 miles away, your VIS mark point could be several miles off target. Thanks all for the help.

If you're gonna leave it on the floor, I highly recommend some add-on case and fan dust filters and make very sure that you have positive pressure in the case, that is, more airflow in than out. I currently live in a very dry and dusty part of the world and man, despite my best efforts, my pc is a dust vacuum case. I tried gaining some desk real state a while back and placed the case on the floor and it turned out to be a bad mistake. The fan blades themselves started to collect so much dust that it eventually solidified into a "concrete", impossible to remove by just blowing air on them. It means it's an aircooled system, not a watercooled. That usually mean that the case is built with big front and top open grilled panels that allow for great air flow to pass through.

do you have a reference that the current F18 RWR should show the range?

Wow! Made me tought on the spanish rescuers.

If the card is for VR he should aim for 3090 due to the increased VRAM, 12gb is not enough if you want high resolution on today DCS. And about 40 series, 4090 one its incredible efficient, way more efficient than 30 series, my 4090 can do the same performance as my last 3080ti with 50% less watts

It is coming up to 3 years since this was announced. Can we get a definitive update please ED?

Kiowa over South Atlantica - WIP

Look in the manual of BS1 or BS2 . It’s explained there. If u try to communicate with door open , then u need also to stop the engines and the APU. if engines or apu are running , than u need to switch the phone to ground.

It will be very interesting to see how this compares to the 5900x and DDR4. Bitmaster is right there, the DDR5 does not scale well or have guaranteed compatibility when using x4 sticks as we have seen so far with Intel Z690. How it works with AMD's new design is yet to be seen as far as I know. I would have got 2x32gb sticks just to be sure.

Your point is valid. Where is that radio?! Been almost 2 years?!

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/digital-combat-simulator/dcs-world-2-5/bugs-and-problems-ai/ai-ad/250183-task-follow-and-escort-temporarily-aborted is the expected behavior for the Escort task, but it doesn't appear that there is a way to task the AI to perform a close escort mission while the escorted AI performs their strike. Could we get a new task type added (for both Escort and SEAD mission types) or some new options for the existing task to provide the behavior expected in that report? I'm not sure if the alternate behavior for the AI should have them follow the escorted group exactly (including altitude changes during dive bombing, for example), or if they should follow but maintain their altitude. An option to specify the maximum distance from their escorted group could be sufficient. As can be seen in the track/miz I uploaded in the other post, the escorts currently wander very far from the unit they are escorting; far enough that they will not be able to intervene in time if an enemy interceptor approaches. Another option would be the ability to set a custom loiter position while the bombers complete their tasks. If I could position the loiter over the target, or between the target and the expected enemy approach, that would solve a lot of problems. It seems that currently they just loiter back toward the previous waypoint, which is exactly the wrong direction to go :)