Leaderboard

From Polychop Discord

RAZBAM Discord Mirage IIIEA Mirage 5A Mirage 5D Cockpit Mirage III Photogrammetry https://discord.com/channels/536389125276827660/874347139659087882/1042163686669819915

You will always find the latest version of all my assets here: http://www.currenthill.com Hey guys! Since the numbers of assets I've created is starting to grow considerably, I've decided to reorganize everything for your sake and mine. This will be the thread where I post information about releases of new and current assets. And I'd be happy to get your feedback on them as we've done so far. I appreciate you mentioning any issues you have, or ideas or new assets to create. To avoid confusion I will be decommissioning all my other threads. All the assets are available in one place with information about version, download link, size, stats and changelog with just a click.

Would be my absolute favourite module! And a great memory: I was the Public Affairs (Reserve) Officer of the German MiG-29 squadon (731. Sqn) at Laage.

I guess people really want a MiG-29... who knew

F is still in service, so definitely no go :(. We also considered and checked BH/DH or even D (which was just a domestic upgrade following 8PP, domestic INS and radar or russian zhuk-8-II radar) still no go unfortunately :((( Per 82 program office, 2 finished upgrade and many test (i.e. EMC, INS (around Edwards AF) etc, but no weapon), along with 4 extra avionics upgrade pack (radar, etc) were sent back to China later. It's first time for China to learn how to design a modern fighter and all following variants and others were benefitted from this (in the same time , engineers from Chendu were also in Grumman's site but neighboring office for super-7 ;)), so 82 program office had all info well doced and summarized. Thus no worry for that. We are also preparing a detailed intro to 8PP and Q&A, as well as loadout table, and will post it once ready.

Type 45 Destroyer 1.0.0 released!

edit 01/05/2023: Updated this with a new mechanism and a stupid long extension, because, well why not? See post down below [Original Post] In an effort to make the DCS rotary wing experience a little more authentic (within reason) I wanted to make my warthog stick behave more like a cyclic and be able to use the without spring stick option. Thereby when you release the stick it stays where it is. In addition to this I also wanted it to be able to be used as a conventional joystick which returns to centre without having to spend any time reconfiguring it all Having picked up a 3D printer at Christmas I set about solidworks trying to devise a mechanism that would work. Design constraints being that it has to fit my warthog stick with its 75mm extension, be self contained to the stick alone and still fit onto the quick release stick socket that I have on my chair. My initial plan was to attempt to utilise a pair of small motorcycle steering dampers to control the two axis and give a non-centring stick, I prototyped this and whilst it achieved the goal, they proved too stiff to realistically use. Fast stick movements were impossible and the friction force was sufficient to actually lift the warthog stick off its gimbal and give very exciting results whilst flying; in addition there wasn't a quick and neat solution for disengaging the dampers. I had the dampers set up in a parallel system and the differential movement between both controlled the motion in both axis simultaneously. Video Link I then set about designing a friction damper that could then be disengaged with a lever mechanism, I'm a cyclist as well so I have metres of spare brake cables so I figured that a bowden cable actuated cam would work. Using an old magura hydraulic brake lever that I had in a spare parts box I worked out the ergonomics of fitting it to the stick handle. Modelled up the joystick and lever and placed the pivot it in the right approximate place; designed a bracket for it and sent it to the printer. Decided to make it a 2 part clamp that would sit on the narrow shaft of the stick and support the handle (a known weak point on the warthog stick) In addition to being a mechanical axis trimming device I also wanted it to be able to activate the trim systems in DCS, this would mean adding some switches to the lever. So I added 4 extra ones for good measure I had an existing USB controller board with 16 spare inputs so I didn't have to purchase any extra hardware, just connect the wires. With the trim input side of things manifest, I turned to the physical locking of the axes themselves. Initially I prototyped an eccentric cam mechanism that clamped against a steel through rod but I struggled to overcome cable drag whilst providing enough spring tension to give the friction needed to lock the axis in place. I had also designed in the same package format as the damper prototype (two parallel mechanisms) but there simply wasn't enough holding force to keep it steady in the roll axis. I changed tack and redesigned it to be one lock attached to each axis and work on a sprung plunger appling friction to the through rod rather than the eccentric cam. Pulling the lever would pull the plunger off the through rod against the spring, releasing the lever would clamp the through rod up again. Printed a mounting ring to fit the warthog base and a lock mechanism along with a 2-1 cable splitter and it looked a bit like this.... By and large it worked pretty nicely from a mechanical standpoint, still no electronics but proof of concept was good Found that the 3D printed cable splitter wasn't man enough to take the M6 threads for the barrel adjusters so iterated the design to have aluminium blocks at each end to take the threads and loads from the cables. Ammended the lock design to incorporate an over centre cam toggle that can be used to push the plunger off the rod and effectively free the stick up again for fixed wing use - takes about 5-10 seconds to convert which is perfect. Screencap of the model with transparency to show the workings. Wired up the switches with a length of repurposed cat5 ethernet and all buttons work nicely. Final solidworks design looks like this... The final design works a bit like this Video shows the stick unlocked (the stick is already quite well self damped/weighted) and has never returned to centre with a quick action, engage the locks and it's solid; it is still possible to get the locks to slip if you put enough force in. Because the warthog spring is still in the gimbal it still finds it's own centre and it's easy to recentre the trim in operation. The through rods need to be cut down by about 100mm but they currently don't get in the way so it's not a major issue. Flying helos now is so much smoother because there is no cumulative cyclic error if you don't get it back to centre at the right time, simply pull the lever and it smoothly transistions movement as you move the stick. Added bonus, I also have a 4 button box attached to the stick that I can use for map and view functions without having to dual bind other controls Apologies for the slightly long post! TL:DR I stopped my warthog stick returning to centre

Some knew, NineLine. We will get it. I feel it in my fingers ... Fulcrum is all around me... In the meantime, enjoy this nice impression of Fulcrums supporting special ops (with it's cannon, rockets and iron) that I found on the net:

The primary criteria all along is whether or not there is enough available data, a professional team actually capable of doing it, and somebody who wants to. In the example of the F-20 mentioned above? Is there enough data? If so, then it's feasible to do, is their a team available and capable? If so, then it's feasible. Does that team WANT to do it? If not, then the other stuff doesn't matter. Just because something is a popular wishlist item doesn't mean it's feasible or that anyone who does this for a living WANTS to. I see the COMMUNITY pitch bitch fits about certain models and whether somebody ''should or shouldn't'' but ED is generally pretty openminded to aircraft, including civilian or non-combat, if somebody wants to and can. No matter what gets built, nobody is forced to buy it or use it in their missions, and a team making ''*insert plane I don't like because reasons*'' isn't necessarily ''wasting resources'' because by doing something they WANT to do. The ''view endorsed by certain vocal segments is not indicative of the reality which is readily observable''

More external model previews

YJ91 or Kh31 I cannot remember exactly were later carried by H or G, so no for PP PP is only for AA enhancement, so limited AG capability.

How is it fictional if it existed ?

How do you not understand anything ... If you were born together with the F-15, and your whole life was interspersed with it somewhere ... Ehhh, why am I explaining this ... Even my wife doesn't know that she is in second place and today is Valentine's Day

It may take a bit, as first I'm updating the Cold Start Training mission that I did for this aircraft back on 2021, so that it is compatible with the current version 5.2 of the Mod. I hope to have it ready within this week, and then I will turn onto the FLIR Guide. In the meantime, this is the Cold Start procedure, updated for 5.2 (still missing the radio handling to call ATC). A bit long, but the steps in blue can be ommited. A-29B Cold Start Procedure v5.2.pdf

Worth watching. There is whole take off procedure from CV for F14 to realign AHRS system

Here is a Video of the thrust vectoring Momentum bug fixed, No longer the SU-57 gains super speed when coming out of a stall or while thrust vectoring on the contrary now it loses energy and starts to sink/fall, more work will be done remember this is all wip, i need to add filter to the thrust vectoring so it does not feel so raw and also slowdown response time. Click on video below. https://youtu.be/S33fLjronNY

That is 100% correct. The Eagle is totally unpopular with me and will be parked with all the other diddle diddle in the corner of the hangar, the phabulous Phantom on the other hand will shine very bright.

Alright, here's the long answer. It's not an easy question. And I think some history is needed to go along with it. I hope I'm not telling what you already know, but then for others, perhaps. And others correct me as needed. One guy can't know it all. I would say Carriers, Cruisers and Destroyers are held-over names of types of ships from WWI and WWII. Some WWII destroyers served in the US Navy into the 1970's, with modifications/updates. The roles of each type of ship seemed to evolve over the decades. In WWII, cruisers...in my studying (I wasn't a naval officer)...had long range and high speed (30+ knots), whereas battleships were slow (18-23 knots). They would range out and patrol long distances...scouting. All these ships used guns and torpedoes (no missiles or radar back then). The US Navy, after WWI only deployed torpedoes on destroyers. They could patrol long distances with minimal escort (a small group of heavy cruisers or a light cruiser together with a heavy cruiser, maybe). It was reckoned a cruiser could out-gun and out-range any destroyers it might encounter and out-run battleships, which would, of course, out-gun them. A heavy cruiser had 8" main-battery guns and thicker armor. A light cruiser had 6" main-battery guns and lighter armor, but maybe a faster rate of fire. 12 to 15 six-inch guns could throw more shells against a target in a given time than the 9 or 10 eight-inch guns of a heavy cruiser. Destroyers generally weren't large enough to carry the fuel needed for long range...they needed to refuel frequently from tankers and large carriers. A heavy cruiser generally could out-gun a light cruiser and be on equal terms with another heavy cruiser...except for one thing...treaties. In 1922, the Washington Naval Treaty was signed by five major naval powers remaining from WWI...US, UK, France, Italy and Japan. It limited number and tonnage of types of ships, I believe. The US and UK abided by the treaty, Japan, after a while, did not. That's why Imperial Japan's heavy cruisers were superior to those of the US and UK...until about 1943...when, no longer adhering to the failed treaty, the US produced the largest, most powerful fleet of ships the world had ever seen, by a large margin. By the end of WWII, for example, the US had 17 operational large aircraft carriers with 10 more nearly completed, 8 light carriers and 59 escort carriers (slower light carriers) ...and thousands of naval aircraft...and a proportionate number of battleships, cruisers, destroyers and submarines. Destroyers were mostly escorts of larger ships or transports against other destroyers and submarines. There were destroyer escorts (of about 23 knots) to deal with submarines (which were only about 16 knots on the surface and maybe 7-10 knots submerged), and regular fleet destroyers of around 35 knots. Aircraft carrier battlegroups were generally capable of 30-33 knots at the start of WWII. So, destroyer escorts generally didn't serve in carrier battle groups. Their job was escorting slow amphibious battle groups, the "old" slow battleships (some of which were from WWI) and tankers and cargo ships. By 1944, the US Navy's primary power was in carrier battlegroups that included fast battleships, heavy and light cruisers and destroyers as escorts. Destroyers had to deal with submarines (and had sonar and radar), other destroyers and aircraft raids. They shipped 5" dual-purpose guns that could be used against anything on the surface or shore and anti-aircraft, 40mm and 20mm AA guns. The light cruisers were equipped with 6" guns to deal with destroyers and 5", 40mm and 20mm guns for anti-aircraft. The heavy cruisers had 8" main battery to deal with destroyers and other cruisers and 5", 40mm and 20mm guns for anti-aircraft. The battleships had 16" main battery to deal with other battleships and cruisers and a large number of 5", 40mm and 20mm anti-aircraft guns...they were especially powerful anti-aircraft platforms. Altogether, these ships provided a tremendous anti-aircraft "umbrella" over themselves and the carriers...the June 1944 Battle of the Philippine Sea as the prime example. But they weren't perfect. All these ships' larger guns were used mostly for shore bombardment by 1945, as Japan's air force and navy was nearly wiped out. Submarines generally went out on solitary patrol, considering every surface ship and other submarines as a threat, regardless of friend or foe. They avoided detection by anyone if at all possible. Because surface ships and aircraft could not afford the time to determine if a submarine was friendly or hostile. They attacked all of them, immediately on contact. And a submarine's primary role was to sink ships. But submarines also worked with these battlegroups (including downed pilot rescue) and sometimes with each other in "wolf packs". In that Battle of the Philipine Sea, several submarines did about as much damage to the Japanese Navy as hundreds of aircraft could do. Submarines, today, might hunt submarines, especially the ballistic-missile ones, but they still have a role (mostly unused) to sink ships, too. The UK's nuclear powered attack submarine that sank Argentina's (ex-US Navy WWII light cruiser, Phoenix) Gen. Belgrano in 1982, for instance. It was a 600-foot-long ship! Unfortunately for it, its anti-submarine escorts were not up to the task. Modern fleet: In the 1960's, surface-to-air and surface-to-surface missiles were developed and improved in the 1980's and onward. In the 1950's jet aircraft appeared on the scene and were too fast for anti-aircraft guns...as you can see and experience in DCS. So, nearly all the guns were removed, save a couple 5" guns for anti-ship and small crafts and minimal shore bombardment. If you have WWII Asset Pack in DCS and man the guns of the Samuel Chase (attack transport) or the LST and try to defend against attacking WWII aircraft, I think you'll find it very difficult to shoot down many planes...the AI is usually a better gunner. AI has near perfect aim, all the time...and even then, it can't get them all. Then defend against attacking jets using guns. You need so much lead in firing, that you have to guess where the aircraft will be and hope it flies on to meet your shellfire. However, one big limitation in the DCS implementation of anti-aircraft guns is the lack of proximity fused shells, Mk51 directors with lead-computing sights for the 40mm and Mk37 radar-directing fire control of the 5" guns. On the 40mm guns, you'd normally do the aiming from a nearby Mk51 director mount, which could remotely direct 1, 2, 3 or all of a ship's 40mm mounts at one target, if desired. They had a switching panel below decks to connect up various 40mm mounts with appropriate directors. I hope they will implement this in DCS in the near future. Destroyers became guided missile destroyers, with a few 5" guns and one or more SAM launchers. They also had bow-mounted sonar and sometimes towed-array sonar. Submarines being so deadly to ships, they employed nuclear-warhead-equipped torpedoes, rocket-propelled, that could get a torpedo out to the vicinity of a submarine before it could get into firing range (I guess)...and like with horseshoes and hand grenades, it only had to be close. That was the SubRoc...anti-submarine rocket. Destroyer Escorts became Frigates and guided-missile frigates in the 1960's or 70's. They became guided missile armed and SubRoc armed and carried a 3" gun. While destroyers (and cruisers and carriers) stayed up around 33 knots, Frigates were only 24 to 27 knots. Light and Heavy Cruisers essentially were replaced in the 1960's and 70's by large, guided-missile destroyers, that were called cruisers just because they were of similar size to WWII cruisers and as a way to differentiate them from smaller destroyers and smaller-yet frigates...some of them were even nuclear powered. Battleships just went away. The Iowa's were brought back a couple times, but only for shore bombardment duty by their 16" guns. The aircraft carriers became supercarriers, as you probably know. The escort and light carriers vanished by the late 1950's. But a new type of small carrier has arisen, the Amphibious Assault ship; now capable of carrying Harriers and F-35's. So, in DCS: There's not a lot of ships and not a lot that go with each other. It's nice to get some other ships from here. One Arleigh Burke destroyer is, in theory, suppose to defend one supercarrier...makes a "battlegroup". In practice, I think they use a couple more, maybe an Aegis cruiser. As I've mentioned, in WWII, there might have been a fast battleship, 4 cruisers (2 heavy, 2 light or 1 heavy, 3 light) and maybe 9 destroyers in a defensive ring to defend 2 large carriers and a light carrier, for instance...a carrier battlegroup. In the Battle of the Philippine Sea, it was something like 5 carrier battlegroups and 1 battleship battlegroup operating together against a smaller, but still large couple of Japanese battlegroups...in the largest naval battle in history, I believe. The enemy ships never saw each other. It would likely have been a battleship slugfest, if they had. Optically directed 18" guns against radar directed 16" guns. I'd have bet on the radar directed. In Korea, I think they essentially did the same as in WWII, but without the battleships in escort much. In Vietnam, it might have been a guided-missile cruiser, 2 guided-missile destroyers and 4 conventional or ASW destroyers to defend an Essex-class carrier and a Forestal supercarrier...a battlegroup. I think frigates, being slower, still hang out with amphibious groups...not sure, though. You can mix and match as you wish, though, in DCS. The US Navy mixed and matched what they had as best they knew how. Sometimes, as history shows, it wasn't the best. And sometimes it was mistakes...Taffy 3 and the battle off Samar.

Fixed the Momentum bug!!! Finally no more warping around after a stall or while using thrust vectoring now you will lose energy properly, Also More Modeling in regards the Cockpit continues. And a Pistol for Fun. A Skin based on the M variant.

Good detalisation, texture resolution. But strange colours, like green filter.

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"

as Pig and Tomcat have systems in common, can it be the next HB project ?

Im flying with VR, Quest2, open beta. I think my last trap was before Christmas holydays. The situation then was that flying with the Supercarrier de ball was crisp and perfectly visible. The Forrestal had way too much glow, but I still could use it to fly the glideslope. Yesterday I went for some laps around the boat and the ball on the Supercarrier was just a huge blur where was impossible to see anything, whatever the distance. Not even at the very moment of the trap. Something like the external lights of the Hornet but that does not go away when you get closer. Luckly I found a mod that fixed it. But I hate to have to use mods to fix thing from the sim, some screw the IC. I have not been able to find posts complaning about the ball after the last couple of patches. There are a few but they have been going for some years and I have never had problems before so I wonder if I am the only one who got the ball ruined after the recent patches.

The AGM-65L allows to set the laser PRF code via DSMS, but also via the MAV page. On the MAV page, there is a fifth position that can be set to an empty value (default) or "C". The manual says: I couldn't find any other mention of what this countermeasure mode is or does in the manual. Does anyone have any info what this is? And does it have any effect in DCS?

I put together some simple procedural kneeboards for the Mirage F1, placed in the User Files section: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3329090/ As stated these are not official procedures, just what I've put together as a quick reminder on how to employ air-to-air weapons, unguided bombs and rockets, and cannon on the Mirage F1 (after not flying it for a while). Kneeboards included: MIRAGE F1 - AIR-TO-AIR ACM MATRA R550 MAGIC AIM9.png MIRAGE F1 - AIR-TO-AIR BVR ACM MATRA R530EM S530F.png MIRAGE F1 - AIR-TO-GROUND UNGUIDED BOMBS AND ROCKETS.png MIRAGE F1 - DEPRESSION ANGLE TABLE - MATRA F4 - 1.png MIRAGE F1 - DEPRESSION ANGLE TABLE - MATRA F4 - 2.png MIRAGE F1 - DEPRESSION ANGLE TABLE - SAMP 250 LD.png The Mirage F1 kneeboards need to be placed in separate Kneeboard folders for each of the Mirage F1 variants, for example: C:\Users\<your name>\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Kneeboard\Mirage-F1CE C:\Users\<your name>\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Kneeboard\Mirage-F1EE Note that while the Mirage F1 comes with kneeboards for weapons use, and the depression angle tables, I wanted some additional details (and larger fonts for the tables), so I went ahead with creating these. Enjoy! AKA_Relent (ED forums: 609_Relentov)

All on hold, we found many of our models stolen and sold online, so we paused all wip AI.

You guess that absolutely right!

Hey good people Not sure if this has been requested. I thought it would be great if in the ME we could have a feature or an option where we could restrict Civilian Traffic in areas where we don't want them moving around. For example in an Enemy Camp we've created with roads only for Armoured Units & such. Or maybe this is now already there added with one of the recent updates & I've missed it? Regards GA

It is requested along with lights in a zone. Traffic would be trickier though I think.

Joooooiiiiiiin uuuuuuuuuuuuussssssssss

Just recently started the campaign with the guys. Really enjoying it so far! We are all recording in VR. This was the first mission/transit flight to the FARP. We are looking forward to the next mission this Thursday. I would be lying if I did not admit it will be a replay. We missed the instructions where we had to give the convoy the green light to move out. All 3 of us are fired up to get it on again.

Как я могу изменить текущий координат перед выставкой? Например, я летел из аэропорта А в аэропорт Б, затем полностью выключите самолет. перевооружаться и дозаправиться, затем снова запустить самолет. Но Инерциальная навигация уже дрейфовать. Я хочу изменить "текущий координатор" Инерциальной навигации на мою правильную координату вместо уже дрейфующей координаты В документации не увидел явного раскрытия этого момента (или проглядел).

Не надо ничего распаковывать. Через редактор миссий входите в папку с кампанией и выбираете любую миссию.

Please continue to be patient, this will be addressed in the future with the DTC. When the DTC function is added, the same NCTR ROE assignment will be set for an aircraft type regardless of the coalition. thank you

Not really, the older model you are referring to shares the same flight character with J-8BF and DF which are still in service. BF and DF were B and D variants upgraded into the F standards. As I mentioned before in my J-8 variants thread, those older ones have structure difference and they can't just be turned into a J-8F. That's why they are called BF and DF.

2 days only to be poorer by the price of the F-15E ! https://www.tickcounter.com/countdown/3848237/f-15e-start-of-pre-order

I have started work on useless details: I started redoing the HUD console: And the navigation should be easier now at night as well, not sure if I'll remaster the compass, I just messed with the heading marker: I tried adding more details but ED says no: BTW: Does anyone in here know if it is possible to change the colour of the light itself? ED's illumination has the wrong colour, it should be red.

Thanks to @AdrianL for posting this in another thread.

From Razbam discord today

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.

Good suggestion guys, I will submit.

id be very interested in that "other publicly available data" as the only one i found after long searches is the one mentioned in my original post. this one also includes the values for other missiles like the aim7, for which the lua data in our game files exactly matches the values in the mentioned document, not so much the 120 as the ONLY missile that has different values in the game files even the "very specific navy publication" (dont know if its still allowed to mention its true name) states that the aim 120s explosive power is larger than the one of the aim-7 even though it has a smaller explosive mass than the aim-7 edit: that navy publication says that the AIM-120 is using a 50 pound warhead that explodes into thousands of fragments. even though it is approximately 30% smaller than the warhead of the AIM-7M, the 120 is using higher density gases to propel fragments more explosively than the aim-7. edit 2: since the document is publicly available under: https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/local/docs/pat-pubs/P-825.pdf, page 158/159 according to the ED gamefiles, even the aim-9 has the higher proximity fuze setting than the 120, this defies every logic

It's still pretty complex though. At least as complex as the Tomcat. Man those to are going to be quite the pair. But it's got an INS, a form of CCIP, I'm pretty sure a form of CCRP, AGR, TV guided weapons, Multiple ARMs including the HARM, Mavericks, RWR, countermeasures, Multiple radios, a restored HUD, and a moving map display. Unfortunately all that is taking some time to model. I'm still holding out hope for this year. But I admit it's a long shot. Still I agree that this bird sits in a great spot technologically. Most of its weapons are free fall iorn bombs. Those, rockets, and the gun will be it's CAS weapons, and even some strike weapons. It isn't plaged with MFDs, with endless pages to memorize. It's going to cover almost the entire range of ground attack missions that were flown from the carrier. It's going to be an absolute beast of a Cold War bird. I would say this is my second most eagerly awaited module. The F-4E is my first. For the reasons you stated above, you get enough assistance to do things like kill tanks reliably, and hit pinpoint targets like a single building or bridge. But you still have to get in there to do it in most cases. The late cold War in DCS is going to be absolutely epic.

I would love to get a F-111 in DCS