Leaderboard

Hi, the 24$ price was an error in our Eshop, it was fixed quickly, anyone who got it at that price have had their purchases honoured. thank you

Wip

DCS Screenshots

Yeah I cannot agree more on this. Being a Chinese myself I know the attitude PLA possessed about their equipment, and the development effort thereof. The point I would like to make is that one cannot really argue, that as part of the avionics are US made, the experience in flying this module would be very American. Some say that with the US avionics installed the immersion would be destroyed. As far as I am concerned, however, the functionality and operational principle of J-8PP would not be different from the later J-8F or other fighter variants (not considering the PL-12 or later missiles). It is a 2nd gen air frame with limited 3rd gen situational awareness upgrade, the capability and operation doctrine will be the same. That's why I said one cannot argue that a IL-2 air frame powered with V-1710 would fly like an American aircraft.

Build 05 Progress Report!!. # 1 momentum EFM bug Fixed. # 2 Helmet mounted display and night vision ( build 01 ). # 3 Night vision hooked to HMD, anywhere you look a glow green/While imaging will be rendered to what ever it hits in it's path, Modeled after the New HMD designed for the SU-57. # 4 Clickable systems for HMD and Night vision Added. # 5 Drag and FM and Engines Reworked EFM. # 6 TVC Thrust Vectoring response limited depending on speed, The Computer will not let you break the Airframe. # 7 Cockpit modeling of new parts such as Oxigen tubes and systems for the ejection seat and pilot. There is more and I will let everyone know when build 05 is available. Best regards: CubanAce .

Sorry mate, just curiosity, if in Your country, to buy something online, credit card payment or PayPal are not Your main payment method, how do You pay online? With suburban-like form of them? With cash that You meticulously put inside an envelope and then You send it? I have Steam and is conncted to credit card and PayPal for payment, so where's the difference? Why use Steam? Because of the colorful interface? Because You launch it and magically all Your game are automatically updated (even standalone DCS work this way but it's "so difficult" to click two times on one icon...). Whining for a postponed pre order, whining for not having a same treatment cause YOU decide to use another platform, whining cause You can't use miles even if was stated that not all 3d part dev will adere to such programs, it's bareble acceptable to put up with this people. Inviato dal mio BLA-L09 utilizzando Tapatalk

I was one of the folks who was initially disappointed for not having a full Chinese cockpit. Fortunately for me, I found out about the big news about a week late and by the time I finished catching up on the thread my feelings subsided and I avoided the embarrassment of going off on the PP (not to say that anyone who did embarrassed themselves, I totally understood where they were coming from). With some time to think about it, although the PP was not built in numbers or had a production run, I now think of it as a fully Chinese plane, despite the western avionics. Just like the PL-8 missile started off as the Python from Israel, and the PL-11 began as the Aspide from Italy, the forth gen aspects of the J-8 began with an external source. Some people want an all Chinese plane because they don’t want trolls going on about the Chinese copying of tech (especially when all that tech was legitimately purchased). But this is the unique aspect of the Chinese Aviation Industry. I recently learned that Deng Xiaoping had a saying which was something like “when crossing a river, cross slowly to feel every rock with your feet”, or something like that. The Chinese Aviation Industry is iterative, taking careful steps, not really caring that there are trolls screaming “copy and paste”, and just progressing carefully, which proved to be the right way until they could afford to take more gambles and tech jumps later. So external starting points are still part of the history of this plane, just like it was for the missiles, before they evolved into something unique. I believe PLAAF posted a nice thread with the different variants of the J-8, and photos of the later ones like the G, H, or F had similar cockpit features of the PP, like the MFDs. So the PP is still interesting to me. Like a snapshot in time in the long road of development.

F-4E flew in anger over both maps you just mentioned. Flew over the Sinai that is coming too. How far do your “realism” standards go? What about a fictional mission over a historical map, is that OK with you?

I cannot really understand why people are getting upset about the American avionics and fire control on this aircraft. From my point of view it is exactly the combination of the 2nd generation high-altitude, high-speed interceptor design, and the (partially) 3rd generation radar and fire control on this aircraft that will make the operation experience unique. J-8 was born in the era of high-altitude, high-speed interceptors, when air-to-air missile technology was still in its infancy and you needed to rely on solely the performance capability of the aircraft to complete those missions. The J-8 thus has superb performance regarding its speed, climb, and handling qualities. Many modern 3rd generation fighters do not have high performance as those aircraft were born in the era when situational awareness and missile capabilities were more important than aircraft performance. With the upgrade of US radar and fire control system the J-8PP becomes a platform that has limited modern situational awareness, and can conduct air-to-air missions without relying totally on GCI. J-8PP's offensive capability, however, is still restricted by its limited variants of weapon payload. I can therefore imagine that the pilot is still expected to make the best use of the performance of the aircraft to explore its combat potential. J-8PP is a heavy interceptor modified with a 3rd gen radar. I would say its combat experience will be nowhere near F-16, which is a light-weight multi-role fighter with good situational awareness, modern electronics and diverse weapon systems. It's combat experience will also be different from 2nd gen fighters like MiG-21 or MiG-23, for which GCI guidance is essential and the capability for multi-tasking is close to none. I would say the challenge for flying the J-8PP in combat lays in how to make good use of its performance potential. How to fly the jet well, is more important in my view. Part of the avionics are not Chinese product? Why would that matter if it does not change the role and functionality of the aircraft? It is like those airworthy classic warbirds: Will you recognize a Mitsubishi A6M Zero with Wright Cyclone engine as a 'non-Zero'? Or a IL-2 Sturmovik with Allison V-1710 engine as a 'non-IL-2'?

Folks there is a lot of incorrect assumptions here about steam. Steam is great for many people, and for many reasons. Steam has a reach in the millions for advertising a product, we have no intention of ditching steam. The Eshop is our own store and we have more control, and can offer more sales, miles, and trials. which ever one you use is fine by us. thank you

Onretech Sinai update

Airmans don't worry We were very careful with the lighting setup, we tried to make the lighting not very intense, not as bright as it is in peacetime. And in the default settings of 1944 the lighting is off, the lighting will appear only if you select 1945. Everyone can choose the lighting mode that he needs.

Welcome to the Wish List section for the core game, this is for all those things you would love to see added to DCS World. This is a safe zone for free expression of ideas, there are no bad ideas that doesn't mean every idea will be added or can be added. In an effort to acknowledge your wishes more we have decided to start tagging threads and even joining in on the discussion if needed. This is not a high priority though so there may be some time that new wishes might go a little while before being acknowledged, but we promise to try and do better at letting you know we are watching. In the past we would just scroll through and look at them when we are looking at new features and additions to see what people are talking about, but no one knew we cared or watched, we do! The Tags: noted: This means that we have looked at your thread, we might add to the discussion and we will keep an eye on it. submitted: This means that its a intriguing idea and will be highlighted to management and the team, this doesn't mean it will happen tomorrow or even ever but it will be highlighted for possible addition to our internal plan. already requested: This has already been requested by someone on the team or in the past by another user, its already in the system but again, no guarantee it will be done soon or not. reported: This is just straight up a bug or issue that needs to be put into our internal reporting system and we have skipped right to that to do so. available: If a thread is marked solved then a solution is already available in the sim. Discussions: Wish List threads can be very personal, and as I said above there are no bad ideas. This doesn't mean everyone will like the idea. If you do not like the idea use the star rating on the threads We do not have time to read through a 30 post thread of two people arguing why something is bad, in fact most times we will just read the first post for the idea and move on from there, if there are 30 posts and a good star rating we will just assume everyone loves the idea. Yes that means that those of you that love arguing about ideas you don't like will actually help the idea get views. So if you don't like it, don't respond, give it 1 star. And be nice to each other. Added 'available' for tags.

Q: What is Peace Pearl Program? A: In brief, during the 1980s China was unable to develop advanced air-to-air radar or semi-active radar missiles at that time, thus turned to UK, France, Israel and the United States to upgrade the J-8II in terms of fire control and weapons, and eventually selected the U.S. AN/APG-66(V) radar for the modification. In the agreement between the U.S. and China, the U.S. should provide 55 sets of production modifications (50 kits and 5 backup) and 4 prototype sets. The total estimated cost of the contract was $501,754,733, and the contract was finally signed with the U.S. on October 30, 1986. China called it "Project 82", while the U.S. called it the "Peace Pearl Program". Q: How many J-8PP has been produced? A: In 1987, the Chinese technical support team arrived in the America. The following year, the design work was completed in cooperation with Grumman. On January 20, 1989, China shipped two J-8II, a static test nose and supporting equipment and technical documentation to America. In 1990, the modification of the two J-8II was completed and China provided a revised English flight manual as requested by the U.S. test pilot, and the aircraft was in complete condition. The avionics test and EMC test were completed, and the start-up and test-run was done at Grumman Bethpage Airport. In the same year, the contract was terminated by China. The next year, the U.S. handed over two prototypes and modification packages to China. The two aircraft now reside in Beijing and Shenyang, but the full-size nose now in Kansas, USA. null One of the two in Beijing. Note the extra cooling inlets on fuselage for upgraded avionic devices The other one in Shenyang Q: What kind of info is shown on HUD/HDD? How many HDDs? A: HUD and HDD should be familiar to everyone. The HUD of J-8PP adopts the F-16A/B style, and a combined glass is added to increase the instantaneous field of view. The HDD is the F-16C/D style, which is located on the right side of the front panel. The HDD is used to monitor system functions, select weapons and modes. HUD Display HDD Menu Q: Is RWR domestic or American? Is it easy to use? A: It's domestic, and similar to SPO-10. It can only be used to distinguish the signal type (search/lock), rough direction, whether the irradiation is approaching or not. Relatively primitive. Q: The J-8II is so similar to the SU-15, is there any connection between the two? A: The J-8, the predecessor of J-8II, was actually designed by China after imitating MiG-21. The Soviet Union did not provide China with any technical information on SU-15. Part of the technology of J-8II came from MiG-23 and F-4, and its appearance may be similar to the convergent evolution caused by the relatively close ecological niche. Q: Are there any flight characteristics or defects of the J-8II, and are there any changes in the flight characteristics of the J-8PP? A: The most characteristic feature of J-8II is that it can easily reach the maximum IAS speed and maximum Mach number in level flight (unlike some third-generation aircraft that need to dive). The delta wing also brings a very good stall characteristic, the minimum speed for maneuvering is lower than 200km/h, and the angle of attack can be greater than 30°. The J-8II has speed stability in most situations, but when it decelerates with g-load in supersonic, the aircraft has a slight nose-up characteristic. Compared with J-8II, J-8PP only has changes in the center of gravity and weight, and some cooling inlets on fuselage have been added. It will not lead to much change to the flight characteristics. Q: Can you introduce more about the flight control system? A: The flight control of J-8PP has three-axis automatic stability augmentation system; pitch, roll and course holding; automatic leveling; low altitude automatic pull-up; pitch/bank automatic trimming functions. Q: Is the cockpit in Chinese? A: Except those upgraded avionic devices and corresponding panels, most are in Chinese. J-8PP uses metric unit. We will provide EN and CN localization for hint of clickable switches. Q: Will it provide visual/performance cockpit for selection like DCS: JF-17? A: Yes. Q: Can players perform flights beyond the safety margin specified in the manual, such as reproducing the overspeed phenomenon during the J-8II test? A: Although the manual stipulates the maximum Mach number 2.2, due to the better thrust characteristics of the turbojet engine at a large Mach number, it is easy to overspeed. The right envelope of the aircraft is mainly limited by aerodynamic stability and aerodynamic heating. You will experience uncontrollable side-slip phenomenon after exceeding M2.35. Q: What weapons can J-8PP carry? A: Air-to-air weapons include PL-5, PL-8, Aspide/PL-11; Air-to-ground weapons include 250Kg GP bomb, 57mm/90mm rockets. Check below figure for details Q: DCS: J-8II module price? A: Not as expensive as DCS: JF-17. Q: How's the documentation? Especially for such an aircraft with only two produced (modified). A: We cannot make anything out of nothing. Q: Does J-8PP have HOTAS? A: The weapon control system of J-8PP is simplified AN/AWG-27. Therefore, the throttle was also modified to F-15 style. Q: What's the difference between APG-66(V)-PRC-F8 and APG-66(V)? A: The main detection performance remains the same. Since it's to upgrade J-8II air-to-air capability, most AG modes (SEA1, SEA2, BCN) were removed (Money was definitely one of many reasons). Q: What about datalink? A: There's one similar to Lazur-M GCI system. But we will not model it in game. The IFF and countermeasure systems of J-8PP will be simplified in game. =================================== If you have any question that was not covered by Q&A, please leave a comment and I will try my best to answer. Our whole team thank you for your support!

It's literally where the Strike Eagle made a name for itself. Looking forward to an Iran campaign, but there inevitable needs to be a Desert Storm campaign and also a no-fly zone campaign. Always loved the "Iraq '93" campaign from MicroProse's F-15 Strike Eagle III. Also, if Israeli variants are going to be released, would like the Syria map to be expanded to southern Israel/Gaza also.

Tu-22 'Blinder' "one of my more unfortunate creations." ~Andrei Tupolev ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ INTRO: Tupolev's other designs were more well received by their pilots after all, and perhaps it would be easier to recommend them instead given some are already AI. So, why do I recommend this one? Lets find out: This video does a better job than I could of describing this plane, its many quirks that make it unique, and its history: Some interesting facts to summarize in case you skipped or missed anything: It's a Mach 1+ single pilot strategic bomber (+ 2 non pilot crew), super high landing speed, ejects downwards, gear sometimes vibrates off the plane during rollout, cant see runway on approach thanks to instrument panel shape during left crosswind, if aoa gets too high during approach the engines will drag you to the ground due to their weight on the tail, and over 1 in 5 were lost in accidents. Also it carried booze. VARIANTS: The two variants I would leave out are the strictly recon and strictly electronic warfare versions (RDM & E variants) because even if that isn't too boring to justify, I'd wager the kub ELINT system and electronic warfare systems are not public knowledge, but I am not sure. Iron bombs though should be relatively easy and the Kh-22 is already in the game on AI planes. Any sub-variant with 'D' means it has a fixed refueling probe on the nose. All in service received this upgrade if they didn't crash first. Without further ado here are the 3 broad variants which I am interested to see from most to least preferred (with sub-variants listed): Tu-22B: Initial version put into service. Conventional bomber. Superseded quickly in own role by R variants. Accounted for 15 out of 311. Tu-22R: Recon variant. Did away some old flaws. Field modifiable to restore B variant capabilities. Accounted for 127 out of 311. Tu-22RD: You know what the D stands for & this is the most important version to add in my opinion. Tu-22RDK: Had the Kub ELINT system added for locating radars. Unknown how many got this upgrade, or if bombing capability is retained with this. Tu-22RDM: Side looking 'Shompol' radar in bomb bay with noticeable fairing in the belly. Likely no bombing capability here. Fewer got this upgrade. | Tu-22K: Kh-22 'Kitchen' cruise missile carrying variant for anti-ship/carrier strikes. Only gets a single missile. Accounted for 76 out of 311. Tu-22KD: You know what the D stands for. Tu-22KPD: P means it has the kub ELINT for finding radar emitting targets and uses the anti radar version of the kh-22. Some got this upgrade. | Tu-22U: Trainer variant which had an extra cockpit above where the normal one is. Accounted for 46 out of 311 Tu-22s made. Tu-22UD: You know what the D stands for. PROS & CONS OF DEVELOPING: Pros: In spite of its imposing looks it would not be very demanding in terms of DCS core capabilities and ground breaking features. Those few unique features it does have don't add up to much of a negative. The main thing going for it is how simple it is. No fly-by-wire, no radar for air-to-air missile shooting, and no glass cockpit with extensive screens and menus to model & integrate with weapons like on more modern planes. Given the versions I am suggesting, we could start with only dumb bombs and the tail gunner in terms of offensive capability, and these things are way less complicated than stuff 3rd party devs have been doing for many years. One other thing going for it is noticeable from a gameplay standpoint. It was flown by a single pilot and for a strategic bomber this is unheard of. Many people talk about how they don't like dealing with Jester or Petrovich to manage their systems, and this is a somewhat different animal to those. From a pilots perspective, yes, you still have a weapons officer. But this is a strategic bomber; the only one in which the pilot's flying duties can be the single player's own alone. I am guessing DCS sim pilots will find this more fun than having to always share those responsibilities. The weapons officer can only see out either side so I imagine as the pilot you will be the one hitting the bomb release. Speaking of crew, I don't think the interior would be too difficult to model since each is rather confined, and the compartments are small. The bomb bay perhaps may be larger but simpler than a cockpit. When it comes to the other stations, I am really not sure what a navigator does exactly or if that is even a seat worth filling in DCS, so perhaps someone may fill me in. The weapons officer I think is mainly there to operate the 23mm radar guided tail gun. Then 3D modeling: There are surviving examples like the one pictured above among others out there. I am sure this would be achievable to a high standard. Given all of that, it would probably be at a lower price point compared to stuff like the F-15E coming out since there is not a whole lot to simulate comparatively. That being said, if any devs would want to go all out on stuff like hydraulic systems, the gear-shaking itself apart and the like; by all means I would welcome it even if it justified a higher price. 3rd party devs more and more seem to be embracing minutia like this lately in their latest work which is great. This plane would disproportionately benefit from that nuance given it's reputation. And with all of that said, we would be getting an entirely new animal in DCS; a true strategic bomber which at top speed would stand a real chance at running away from threats. Cons: There are really only two. Flight modeling: By far this will be the most problematic, and is the obstacle standing in the way of getting more soviet aircraft in the game. Even this old and outdated aircraft is still largely classified and there is no sign of this changing. The real hurdle is the aerodynamic data, I think. DCS prides itself as a platform which provides the best possible flight models, and the best way to ensure accuracy is to have the actual recorded data from those who designed, tested, and operated the real things. The latter may be possible, but seems unlikely in light of it's reputation as mentioned. The former two, not a chance. So a full Professional Flight Model is out of the question. But I am not entirely sure that is a deal-breaker. If we look here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/faq/general/ there is some interesting info. We can see there are certainly other alternatives to a full PFM. My interpretation of this is that it would require the developers to try and recreate the plane virtually and simulate aerodynamics based on their own model so they can iron make the flight model 'from scratch', but perhaps my phrasing is off or I am just wrong. I am guessing if this were possible then this is where the most painstaking work would be done. At least jets are easier to simulate accurately than props. Sound Modeling: I have no idea if any of the surviving examples still run. The only other aircraft to use its engines were the VM-T Atlant (Carried the Russian space shuttle Buran, both retired long ago), and the Caspian Sea Monster. Do any of these 3 types still run? Better yet, do any of their engines? If not I don't know how the sound can be modeled to an acceptable standard. PROS & CONS POST-IMPLEMENTATION: Pros: We would have the first strategic bomber bolstering the already somewhat under-armed soviet/OPFOR side of things in multiplayer servers. A very unique plane in DCS in terms of: Having a more modern gunner position as a fixed wing. Unique multicrew unlike the helis or twin-seat aircraft which have so far been implemented. Unique and very heavy munitions which can be used for targets of opportunity, unlike the coming MOAB (See C-130 FAQ video on youtube). Would be one of the heaviest flyable aircraft in DCS yet next to the coming C-130J Would not be hindered at all lacking its nuclear capability since the bomber demonstrated more than adequate conventional capabilities IRL. It would make a viable recon plane in cold war servers should such mechanics make it into the core game. Cons: This may give a sort of asymmetric advantage in multiplayer situations when it comes to the fact these things are perfectly capable of loft-tossing MOAB equivalent ordinance (FAB-9000s) at supersonic starting speeds with rather decent accuracy while avoiding AAA return fire + they can start this attack from beneath surface radar coverage. They did this reliably IRL during the Iran-Iraq and Chadian-Libyan war. AI bombers on the other side may counteract this just fine though as a balance mechanic. What may also take the edge off this unique capability is the fact that they will be limited in the airfields in which they can operate from due to high take-off & landing distances. This means the enemy will likely target their airfields more often and so they will need to be more heavily defended. SUMMARY: Once airborne they are quite unruly and will be vulnerable to supersonic fighters especially. This will mean that they are more prone to attrition if used carelessly and will punish mistakes on the part of the pilot especially ruthlessly. This demand for more skill from the players crewing it in terms of planning and pure flying finesse is where DCS ought to shine, I figure. Whether that is a con or not is up to you to decide. Overall their affect in DCS multiplayer is up to some speculation, but I think this would add something truly awesome and unexpected. Keep in mind that when this bomber first went into service, it could pretty much outrun anything else which had the armament to try and shoot it down, as mentioned in the video. With the F-100D Super Sabre on its way as well as the presence of several sub-sonic planes from the cold war in DCS, we might have some pretty interesting what if scenarios to try out. Should just one get through to a target with a good crew in control; ouchy. It would be interesting to see how much the munitions and airframes would need to be limited in the cold war servers to get a proper balance, but I definitely think every flight in one of these, especially with a crew of players trying to do their tasks (flying, defensive gunnery, and navigation) would be a unique adventure each. FINAL NOTES: There is an AI Tu-22 being worked on, you can see some progress here by Hawkeye60: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/318989-su-15-flagon-by-marco1985_it/#comment-5152022 Also read this post: The idea in the last part of this post, in reply to a call for more REDFOR aircraft, is slowly already coming to fruition with the 3rd party development of the MiG-17 and Su-17/22 Fitter by Red Star simulations and Magnitude 3 respectively. Gives me a good feeling that one may look into this. LASTLY: If you have any more info on this plane/its variants please post a reply, I'd love to know more. Don't pull a WarThunder and leak stuff. If you are supportive of this being added, then giving this thread a good rating can potentially attract the right attention to it. If not then leave a suggestion if you'd like, and please be nice. Addenda: Some stuff which I feel deserves to make it into this post which was brought up by others: The recon variants if implemented could have options in the mission editor to remove the camera equipment and allow for heavier conventional bomb loads. Nuclear munitions are ignored as ED has stated they do not ever plan to implement those, and this would have basically zero impact on the viability of this as a module in DCS given its conventional capabilities. I have also updated the pros & cons sections accordingly to other points I think are important which Vampyre made below.

Because drama is our business. There are some who think Steam customers are less than orthodox on their DCS beliefs since Steam takes a cut that does not go to the devs. In the same way that some criticize those who buy things on sale since that also means the devs get less cash. I have bought DCS stuff on sale... on Steam. I guess that makes me the worst of infidels.

Dunno how it became a Steam vs. DCS thing. I found and became a DCS fan (2011) because of Steam. I think Steam is important to DCS for marketing reach. However, after a few years I switched to full standalone DCS to better support ED/TFC. I am still a Steam customer, it does have a lot of advantages. Not sure why a line has to be drawn in the sand over the Steam vs. DCS F-15E drop. Sure, some things don't show up in one vs. the other, discounts etc. But Steam is a great platform, and works for those that wish to stay with it for DCS. Pure DCS clients have advantages also, but those are very specific to a certain type of mindset and player, of which I am one. Mainly, maximize profit for a my favorite developer, and run the client in as pure a state as possible, especially Beta. But, not a day goes by that I am not launching a game from my Steam portal. Many of which I would never have bothered with if it were not for Steam.

DCS multithreading

Thanks for this mod

1. Download rate. 2. Customer protection. 3. Payment methods. 4. DRM via Steam servers. 5. Comfort. Switching language or between OB / stable is just a mouse click. No need for a reinstall or fiddle around with any files like back in the 90s. Same for moving the DCS install to another drive. Game starts as if nothing was changed, also no need to fiddle around with any files. 6. Refund is just a mouse click without having to deal with the dev studio. 7. A working friends list. 8. Games guaranteed to work even after the developer is bancrupt because of 4. 9. Most people have Steam anyways . No need for another annoying launcher or transmitting payment informations to another platform. Some ppl are sensible with their payment infos. 10. Modules are cheaper in general. Just a few €uros, but for some ppl this may make a difference as not everyone is living in the rich west like we do. 11. DCS embedded in the same ecosystem like the rest of the games. 12. I can buy modules on Steam and transmit them to standalone anytime. Vice versa is impossible. I don´t think it is that hard to accept, that some ppl are just not willing to switch from steam to standalone because of one (or several) of these advantages. That broken "switch to standalone" record sometimes sounds like a sect trying to convert people, but not like a reasonable arguement. At least not to me.

Дайте нам кликабельную кабину чтобы мы одной кнопкой инициировали скрипт автозапуска))

Mods get updated, just like DCS. You never know. If you can reproduce the issue in SP, try disabling these mods in the module manager and see if the issue persists.

It's easier to find places where the F-4 hasn't flown... than where it has flown... My bet is Antarctica, and Cape Horn...

Тогда у нас вылезает то, что первая серия тестов (на закрылках): - была выполнена неправильно, поскольку результат сравнивался с табличным значением для взлета на чистом крыле и по стандартной методике - с поднятием хвоста. Соответственно, последующие резкие и критические высказывания в адрес разработчиков и GUMAR'а в частности - ничем не обоснованы. Но они так и висят в этой ветке, словно все так оно и есть на самом деле - может, стоит извиниться? Вторая серия тестов (на чистом крыле): - также была выполнена неправильно, поскольку разбег происходил без поднятия хвоста, а это не соответствует технике взлета, указанной в Инструкции летчику. Для проверки табличных значений нужно взлет выполнять не по методике "как мне кажется" а так, как это дано в документе. А в документе это дано не для того, чтобы "показать более конкурентноспособные данные", а для того, чтобы летчик не разбился. Вместе с тем, у нас есть прекрасная возможность проверить разгонные характеристики Мустанга в симуляторе вообще безо всяких споров о методиках взлета. Собственно говоря, эта проверка уже сделана: В документе "Pilot Handbook" T.O. №. 1F-51D-1 в главе с описанием техники взлета на закрылках в трехточечном положении есть такой график:

And don't forget, RazBam and ED were verrrrry happy pushing the pre-order. It's not like the customer base invented the pre-order hype - the pre-order hype was manufactured for the customer base. It brings in a chunk o' change and builds interest for a product that is yet to be. Raz and ED are fully aware of what they are doing. "Cool plane! Awesome trailer! Booming bombs! Sizzling sounds! Pre-order incoming. Excitement! Excitement! Excitement!" I'm completely fine with that. They like selling hype and we like buying hype. They like selling planes and we like buying planes. It's fun. And it's reasonable that many in the Steam base are disappointed with how things worked out given the hype before the fact followed by, well, the fact.

They're a business, ffs, that just invested a great deal of time and money in a product. The sheer mind numbing idiocy exhibited in this thinking makes my face tingle. They are understandably not interested in heavy discounts or losing an extra 30% on top of the cut ED takes. It's not that complicated, and nobody cares about the handful of snowflakes acting all uppity over the choice of marketplace. The world is not going to end and nobody is going out of business because a 133764M3R is walking away @@

what a petty comment … and customer satisfaction has to do with product and service quality, not giving a price discount. have you seen many dcs developers becoming millonaires? Do you work for free on real life? .. software development needs to be funded, no one will work for you for free .. if that’s being greedy then you have very unreasonable expectations … perhaps you would be better served by playing with free Android flight sims.

Hallo in die Runde, als Nutzer einer Radeon RX 6800 XT teile ich euch meine aktuellen Einstellungen in DCS und openXR (viele Grüße an derneuemann an dieser Stelle). Ich muss noch dazu sagen, dass VR mit dieser Grafikkarte aktuell gefühlt flüssiger und angenehmer läuft als in der Vergangenheit. Keine Ahnung, ob eine NVIDIA-Grafikkarte noch "besser" liefe (mir fehlt der Vergleich). Ob ich wieder eine Radeon kaufen würde? Aufgrund des Preis-/Leistungsverhältnisses auf jeden Fall ja. Eine Geforce 4090 würde mich schon reizen, das gebe ich zu. Grüße, Flummi

Any chance of the auth endpoints being moved away from the website so future pre-orders don't bring down multiplayer for people? Absolutely nothing wrong with having a pre-order and generating hype for one, but it does become an issue when it impacts people's weekend plans. And before anybody goes off on one, no - this is not at all an unreasonable ask. Having everything integrated as one is a single point of failure.

Its gonna be a loong while at a guess. Probably 1-2 years out.

EMCON Case 3 actually worked a lot better for me than I thought it would. I set my self up 21 miles and (if I remember correctly) 183 degrees from the waypoint and followed the other aircraft's anti-collision lights to the carrier's lineup light in the distance when it was time to commence. You can actually see those lights in DCS and the lineup light was key without ILS for the first few miles. I was concerned that I didn't have an ILS channel in the brief or on the card but ILS came on a few miles from the boat on the default channel as intended. The hardest part was the same as all pitch-black night landings, no visual horizon makes it really hard to make precise corrections. I was kind of all over the place on the way down but I made it. It was exciting for sure. As for the probe light, check out these threads: There is a great video from a real Tomcat refueling at dusk in the first one. It shows that the real life light was pretty dim but it looks like it did more than what we have in DCS. It might have been enough to be useful in the dark of night. The second thread contains some speculation that it's pointed too far left. Here are some screenshots that I took to show the effectiveness of the probe light in the dark taken a few feet from the hangar back wall. I've included one with the Hornet's probe light on just to illustrate what I was trying to see.

Six, IIRC. Singles on the outboards, pairs on TERs on the inboards.

@Dragon1-1 I am now genuinely curious, how do you pay for whatever you buy via Steam? Does it offer a wire transfer in your country or something? Just asking, don't mean to fuel the Steam / Standalone fire.

People peddle that jamming the wings forward is better but never actually test it themselves. In truth the penalties for putting the wings forward will more likely punish you versus leaving it in auto. This was a test I ran a few months ago, that shows only two instances - the F-14B at 400 knots at 10k feet, and the F-14A at 15k+ feet in which it benefits from the wings coming forward. However, it's a lot harder to return the wings to auto once you're no longer in a scenario that's favourable having the wings forward.

There's always a unicorn exception, but expecting the world to stop turning and people to cater specifically to *insert unique situation* is unrealistic. The majority of people around the globe are literally not affected by these ''special circumstances'' and most businesses are going to opt to do what's best for them regardless of whether a few hundred isolated individuals are put upon by it.

ah ... EagleDynamics DCS web installer (not Steam) of current client version 2.8.2 has a default install option values as " Full installation (Recommended)" with both free maps Caucasus and Mariana Islands turned-on to install. Yes, we can turn-off the checkbox of Mariana Islands terrain in this screen when we don't need / like to install it.

There is a user mod coming soon, for an AI-only Blinder:

This?

Hi, I finished the update of the Cold Start training mission, here is a download link: https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ai6cuX3YQI26ic54x4HdHKAzTtDVgA?e=HZwV3r I would really appreciate if you could test it and confirm that the prior issues are solved. Well, it took longer than a couple of days, but I finally finished the update .. I added aspects that on v1.8 of the Mod were not implemented, like the EGI Alignment and the use of Radio communication with ATC, amongst a lot of small details that changed, like the warm-up time for the avionics, the simulation of the Fuel-Cutoff, Start and Idle positions of the Throttle, the simulation of the Throttle COM ptt three-position switch, the Radar Altimeter, etc Here is a video walkthrough so you can take a look at how it works: My greatest thanks to @Luiz Renault for this lovely Mod, it was a pleasure to edit this type of mission because he implemented very neatly the entire cockpit controls, giving access to almost every element of the displays, and defining a lot of Parameters that make easy to get status information about the aircraft. Now I will continue with the next missions, hopefully they wont take so much time to redo. Once all are finished, I will share the whole set of Missions at ED's User Files Cheers! Eduardo

Keep drinking the kool-aid, meanwhile those who didn't really have a choice when it comes to platform (again, e-shop sucks in many different ways, especially when your country doesn't do USD) will continue to feel like they've been hung out to dry. Steam does account for quite a large chunk of the community, and leaving them out doesn't feel right. Need I remind you, not only was this not announced in advance, RAZBAM had reassured Steam users that preorders will, in fact, be on Steam. We have every right to be miffled that it suddenly turned out not to be the case.

Yeah definitely a shame. The decks of the Carriers should be filled with beautiful Tomcats, and not ugly 35's. The AMRAAM used in that test was a D model though, which we don't have. Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

When will it be available?

A basic install, with just the Caucasus map is around 80 GB. Here is an image where you can see how much disk each dlc takes.

Deka has been very very clear over the years that their choices are defined by what the PLAAF allows them to do without moving into a jail cell for the rest of their lives. If the choice is the J8PP or nothing at all, I'll take the J8PP.

Hello, I've recently been playing the "other simulator" and I've been surprised by the depth they have gotten with Data Link and IFF, especially wiht the lastone...is there any intention to do something similar in DCS Core? Thank you!

Normandy 2.0 update

I have never seen the triple command as a big problem, but there is a simple LUA edit to execute the underlying command "iCommandPlaneEject" 3 times with a single button press. To achieve this, I added the following line of code {down = iCommandPlaneEject, pressed = iCommandPlaneEject, up = iCommandPlaneEject, name = _('Eject (press once)'), category = _('Systems')}, into the file "default.lua" in the folder "K:\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\Config\Input\UiLayer\keyboard". This creates the new keyboard command "Eject (press once)" in the UI Layer. This will make the command available for all modules that use the command ""iCommandPlaneEject" with a single binding. The remaining challenge is to find a key combination not yet used for any command, but the new 2.8 functionality helps with that. You could also make the command available for game controllers by adding it into the "default.lua" under "...\joystick".