Leaderboard

J-8PP, fully functional, built and well documented aircraft is not okay??? But Razbam's frankenstein F-15E and HB Eurofighter trench 1.5 is fine??? Deka chose to be honest with their documentation and research. If they do it in Razbam's fashion they would just say it's a J-8II and answer somewhere in discord that it's the PP. And they are precisely modeling that one aircraft parking in Beijing Aviation Museum, unlike Razbam, who sews together avionics from 10 different variants and call it a FF module. If you don't like an aircraft it's ok, just don't buy it.

Don't be silly, the choices here were don't make a J-8II or make one they could legally get info on. They chose the one that will bring us a cool aircraft to the sim. Besides I would love a full fidelity X-wing, but all information was lost in the archives located on Alderaan. Also please stay on topic. The topic being the J-8II. Thanks.

Also, and I do not want to speak for Deka, but they want to do Chinese aviation. They are doing AI versions of other J-8 versions, and they felt the best info they could get for this one. As always purchase is optional. If its not your cup of tea then you have that choice, I for one think it will be an interesting version and allow for some cool wat if scenarios which honestly most DCS MP sessions are what if scenarios.

MODULAR BUILDING MOD PAINTKIT FOR THE GROUND & BILLBOARD Installation: Drop the "Modular Building" folder in C:\Users\%username%\Saved Games\DCS\Mods\tech\ Ingame, the building elements can be found under "Static Objects -> Structures -> MB - XXX"

Laughs in KA-50 Blackshark 3. Also dont forget that with every sale, ED also get some money. And we all know how much a new redfor plane is wanted. Especially by the chinese DCS community.

Misc Military Assets by Currenthill 2S38 Version 1.0.0 released - see first post

Sigh... you know, I can write a pretty long post quoting and replying to multiple people from both sides but, what's the point? I'll just say that, DCS community has such a unique ability in that, they can make me vehemently disagree with BOTH sides of a heated debate on something. I've already stated that I'm somewhat disappointed, but also just mildly excited in an earlier post in this thread, so, there, I have some thought I share with both detractors and celebrators. But both sides' "black and white" look at many things is just frankly tiresome. I'll only make a few points: - Yes, expressing negative thoughts, grinding as it may be, is often at least as important as doing the same with positive thought. If anything, I'll readily say that it contributes a lot to the health of whatever is receiving that feedback. Random knee-jerk white-knighting however, doesn't. Only thing the latter serves is to rile up people into being even less reasonable. - This variant, from what I can find, was in fact has a couple prototype airframes built, and they were test flown in US. Yes, it was never operational. Yes, this is less than ideal. But every piece of avionic from either China or USA that was put on it are pretty well known things by now, and there is no reason to assume a prototype that was built and tested wasn't documented as the process went. If that is the case, I'll just go ahead and say that if anything this is going to be something grounded in reality more than what we have in Blackshark 3, which I have some reservations about as much as I like it. - Since Deka will apparently give us an AI J-8F, which is a completely domestic and in service variant of the bird, but give us an odd-ball prototype that was never in service and has US avionics, it appaers like this is probably the only one they can make at a DCS standard with info legally available to them. IT WOULD BE GOOD IF THEY COULD CLEARLY COMMUNICATE THIS OF COURSE. But hey ho... Otherwise we'll have to stick with getting samey aircraft from same few countries. Deka even said early on that they consider making a western jet as their second module years ago after the first release of JF-17, and we as a community said "please no". This is a compromise, one most of us from either side of blue/red aircraft lovers will have issues with, sure. But seems like one that was necessary to get us a different red(ish...) bird. - I for one, don't care too much about this country or that country. I like planes, for the most part. F-16, I've never liked, is the main fighter of my country forever, and I like some aircraft and liveries operated by the countries/regimes I don't care for. I want as many cool, obscure, interesting aircraft from as many places as possible. And I do like them red birds. Could be that "grass is greener on the other side" syndrome (even though that isn't quite how I feel), or because of the fact that we just rarely had them simulated throughout decades, and we still don't have many of them made. So if we can a cool obscure red bird that was actually made and documented as a prototype, as much as I'd prefer a domestic and full production variant, I'll still say YES. "Nobody asked for this", yeah, let's assume nobody did... so what? - I guess we (well mostly) all agree that we want aircraft DCS to be as realistic as possible, and we don't generally want made up, guesstimated, ufo things if at all possible. I am that way at least. Well, let's make it perfectly clear here: probably NONE of the existing modules fully fit that criteria. Including many, many of the blue birds. Mirage 2000 is one of the best modules now, after like 8ish years since its initial release... when they got a new programmer who was basically a Mirage 2000 nerd, and when they also got cooperation from AdA. Until that, it had a lot in it that was just plain and pure guesstimated, even its then devs admitted to it about a few things like symbology etc. I personally still don't have much faith in its flight model, but that's just me, and apart from that it is legitimately one of the best modules now. Yet it has always been one of the most popular modules before too... MiG-21Bis, used to be one of my favorites, was developed by a person who was actively flying that very type in Serbian air force at the time too. Yet, miraculosuly, it still has many systems that are just plain wrong, and throughout its existence in DCS, it went through like 6-8ish flight models with wildly different characteristics at the edges of envelope, where it's interesting to fly... and that's a bird as unclassified as it gets. What I'm getting is... a well documented prototype with mostly obsolete foreign tech may not be nearly as far off documentation and realism wise from our favorite existing modules... not nearly as much as many of you seem to think...

Dear pilots and friends. The OnReTech team is in the final stages of the second phase of the Sinai map project. We took the time to unique models and small details on the surface. Improved green colors for field and surface textures. Fixed some bugs and comments. Modeled 11 new airfields. We continue to work on the second phase and are engaged in setting up and testing the project.

DCS is a sandbox, there isn't really a problem. Simulating the Vietnam War is as exciting as simulating a fictional war against China with J-8PP's fielded, isn't it? If you prefer one over the other you can also ignore the one you don't like. That they are prototypes doesn't really matter, what does is if they are documented in detail. If they are documented in detail, then they'd be fine for DCS. Deka should be able to work on what they want, and who is even to say that the planes you list are possible? DCS has room for multiple developers, not everyone has to chase the most popular planes.

What's this, then? Hint: not a mockup. The plane was built, two of them to be exact. I don't know if it flew, but it looks like it might have. This is the only J-8 we're realistically going to get. This will likely be a very accurate simulation of an aircraft that simply never ended up in wide service. Which, incidentally, is probably the only reason they've been allowed to make a module out of it. Asking for actual Chinese aircraft is a waste of time, and in the current political climate, for Russian ones, too. This is suboptimal but it's the only way we're getting anything Chinese. In fact, expect it to get worse, since there had been some worrying signals from China as of late.

not every skipper knows this) maybe

Their are a number of prototypes or very low production run aircraft in game, that line in the sand is long passed.

Because it is the only way you will get any Chinese aircraft. Unless you would like to go talk to the Chinese government to try change their current information policies.

Hi, fighters We responded to numerous requests from DCS Normandy1944 users and found additional features and resources to ensure that, in addition to summer, seasons of autumn and spring are also available to users on the DCS Normandy 2. And since on the Normandy 2 the textures of fields and trees are made separately for England and separately for France, the user will see the difference between autumn in England and autumn in France. There will also be differences in spring on these different parts of the map. England spring England autumn France spring France autumn

RAZBAM Mig-23MLA damage model

And I can’t understand why it bothers you so much … if you don’t want the module just don’t purchase it, but bickering about it is so pointless …

I can barely see through this cloud of Doritos dust.

Carry on Deka, do not mind the haters.

ahhh, that's too dangerous but j-8f ai can carry pl-12

Wow. This is the exact module we all waited for. Thx DEKA. It will be a winner... As an edit: DEKA, you never let us down and never gave us any bs. The JF-17 was always and still is on spot (!) and this is why I will insta-buy any module that comes from your store. You guys are simply awesome, you rock!!!

Because nobody is going to put you into a labor camp over them? In case you don't know, there's a very real concept of exactly that happening to people who sniff around too closely around Russian and Chinese military hardware, especially anything remotely modern. Deka is a Chinese company and they make Chinese aircraft. It now appears that the selection of possible projects is severely curtailed by the Chinese government. I believe they made a decision they'd like a J-8, and it turned out that PP is the only viable choice. In fact, it's quite possible that the government won't allow any native Chinese avionics to be modeled, as stupid as it is. So, they could do old stuff contemporary with MiG-19 and early -21, basically old Russian export aircraft (which would certainly have its fans, but wouldn't sell nearly as well), or make the best of the bad situation. Information to make a functional J-8PP exists, and the aircraft uses well documented US avionics. I think that the aircraft they really wanted to do is the J-8F, and maybe it'll happen someday (hopefully for no additional charge), but reality is what it is. If you look at the stick, it's got a MiG-21 style brake lever, so I guess it's still same old pneumatic system.

PBR Material Set Up Test. Not sure how matte RLM paints were and also think the metal used was of a brushed type rather than high gloss polish like on the e.g. Mustang. Makes it pop nicely tho. Making the paints more matte will help make the oil and fluid spills pop more.

Now that the cat is out of the bag, can we see more WIP shots as it progresses?

First of all, I have just heard that you guys are going to make J-8II, I don't know a word to describe how I feel right now. Excited? Not strong enough of a word. Happy? Not accurate enough. All I can say is that I don't think I will be able to get any sleep tonight. You guys are awesome. I will be in Beijing in a few months time. When I do, I will find you guys wherever you are and I will kiss you guys so hard that your faces will feel numb for hours if not days. OK, now that I have finished my venting, let's get back to the topic. I heard that there were 3 variants of PL-11 missile. If you have already decided to make them all, I apologies to have waste your time here. The original PL-11 was just an modified Aspide missile. But there are 2 more upgraded variants. A PL-11A which hard new seeker head, fuel system and motor. It had a roughly similar performance as AIM-7L. And the is an PL-11B which was an active radar guided variant of PL-11A. I think it was designed by the 607 institution. So please consider making them into the module. Thank you guys VERY VERY MUCH~!!!!

a study sim does study. what's wrong with that? like there's minimum number of production models needed to reach DCS? ease out man. lets have some fun.

Modern Chinese Navy Ships by Currenthill Type 055 Destroyer Version 1.1.0 released - see first post Version 1.1.0 Added cold launch to HHQ-9B Changed HHQ-9B sound to cold launch type Changed Type 726-4 CM implementation to be less accurate and have shorter range Changed damage model and added more damage zones and fire positions Changed sound for Type 726-5 CM Fixed CJ-10 texture error Fixed Type 1130 CIWS size Fixed YJ-18 flight characteristics and performance Fixed hull texture error and added weathering Fixed player control viewpoint for H/PJ-38 gun Fixed sound errors

Same reason why we have the Ka-50 Black Shark 3 that never existed. To make money and to open "what if" scenarios

спасибо, что объяснили!) точно!)

I think it looks interesting. I would ofcourse love a more modernized version with chinese avionics just to see how it is, but that is probably not feasible at this time. And there may be many reasons for that. Considering the level of fidelity required on DCS modules, the availability of non-classified information is crucial, and that means not everything is possible. In a dream world, I would love to see a J-10 in DCS for example, but I also realize that technical information is hard to come by, so I must simply accept it. And that's why I like DCS: the modules attempt to be quite faithful to the subject matter. If I want an arcadey surface-level game with F-35s, J-20s and all kinds of bleeding edge tech, then that is not DCS. I am sure there are games that can provide this but it will come at the expense of realism. (or the complete lack of it) Realism requires information, and on this type they have clearly found enough information to be able to move forwards with it. Ofcourse even DCS is still a video game and can never be truly 100% accurate, but at least it can come decently close. People are obviously entitled to their opinions, but from my own personal experience I would recommend focusing your energy on the stuff you enjoy rather than bashing the things you don't. If this isn't interesting to you, then that is perfectly fine. You want everyone to know? Okay, sure. But why though? Someone hops into the forum for this plane and starts criticising Deka Ironworks for choosing this plane. What is the best case scenario you are expecting? That they drop their three years of research and progress because some random user on the forum don't have an interest in this particular type? Or do you want someone to comfort you? I am nobody's boss, so you obviously don't need to listen to me, but my advice is to instead go to the forums of the planes you DO look forward to and share your hype instead of being toxic on the modules you DON'T care about. Just a thought. Like the things you like and ignore the things you dislike, and you'll probably be happier in the long run.

We don't understand each other at all... Digital Combat Simulation - something that is considered on the "game market" to be the most professional "aviation" simulator that gives a lot of machines mapped "quite realistically" to be called the most professional simulator of combat machines. And starting from this point of view, I don't understand why not develop it based on at least three conventional eras full of great planes - for everyone - and without fiction, prototypes, inventions ... World War II - dozens of planes to recreate - Soviet, American, British, German, Italian, Japanese... The period from 1945 to the end of the "Cold War" - again dozens of mass-produced aircraft by several countries... "Modern" times from 1991 to today... - ok, problems with documentation, etc., but probably not for everything. And suddenly there are planes that no one has ever heard of, which were created in one or two copies and not finished and not fully tested ... JF-17 in the hyper S-F version. I bet that the documentation - especially regarding the flight of this invention will be as valuable as the "default" parameters of the YF-23 ... or La-250 ...

The J-8PP fully meets the criteria of a simulation. Simulation does not mean historical accuracy, and never has. The only take away you can make here is that people are open to simulations that are outside of historical events. This has been the case since before DCS was released as even LOMAC was based on fictional combat involving simulated aircraft.

https://t.me/fighter_bomber/10925 Perhaps it will be useful for developers

dear community, I do not know if this is the right place to ask but does somebody know how to increase sound volume of A/C structure stress, stall vibration, sound of air flow...etc. May a ".lua" file. In game we can't here these sound very well and I feel they are helpfull to warn a stall or hig G stress on structure. Thanks in advance for your help.

The F-4E was exclusively an Air Force variant and as such featured dual controls. So @Gianky, to answer your question, yes you can fly from the backseat. On the subject of refueling, we rolled out the hydraulic cart again today to leak check the utility system, and we cycled the air refuel door a couple times. For those that have never seen it, here is what it looks like:

WIP

Some of custom weapons ready for Soviet bombers WIP, models mine

What does it even matter? Let the cope seeth. Good luck to them.

Nope. ED also confiremed that when they released BS1 that it never got iglas

You do realize that you can Simulate an Plane that never flew. A Simulation is Fictional. It is Simulating something that did or could happen. So, what's your point now?

To be honest, I dont see why its a big deal. Same airframe just with different avionics. Its like a PC with different hardware. Its pretty normal in general aviation that people put anything they want into their cockpit and its kinda the same here with the J-8PP. The documentation exist for the avionics and we see that they have been installed in the aircraft at some point. It wont make the aircraft fly different from other J-8II But they could have installed a better RWR other than the SPO-10 you see in the top left corner

Yup, as said above. i also believe it was brushed/dull, alluminium compound of some sort. Was just a quick test to try how the PBR in DCS works. The metal will be adjusted accordingly.

Dekka has centred on Chinesse market no Russian / USSR. And build aircrafts by the available info.... If you like that modules, recomend build your 3rd party and get own info, but dont attack the develop process of 3rd party or ED module aproval. And that nothing todo do with WT or others programs.

How can it ruin the module for people who don't care about realism and historical relevancy that other people do care and are disappointed? If you don't care then it doesn't matter what we think, does it?

Developers are people too. They’re building the plane they can get enough information on. I imagine it would be disheartening to be excited to announce your new module and have people crap all over it. Are their planes I would have preferred? Absolutely. But that doesn’t mean the J-8 won’t be a great addition. Of course everyone is welcome to voice their opinions. I’m just voicing some encouragement.

J-8II won dogfight over JF-17 in Pakistan years ago. Unfortunately, J-8II has same gun deviation angle as JF-17 Per 82 program office, 2 finished upgrade and many test (i.e. EMC, INS (around Edwards AF) etc), along with 4 avionics upgrade pack (radar, etc) were sent back to China later.

работаем над мультипотоком, DLSS и FSR любая полезная технология будет рассмотрена рано или поздно, проект то постоянно развивается