Leaderboard

Dear All, to make it clear for everyone. The price policy will remain the same as we announced it in October: It was my personal mistake in March 2023 newsletter.

Bonjour! Aérodromes en France. When we were just thinking about expanding the map detail zone, we understood that France was not an easy path - it was a large territory with an active history at the time of 1944. Where yesterday there was a field, today there is an airfield, and after a short time it is in trenches. Since the start of development, we have increased the number of airfields in France. Added historically significant airfields, intermediate airfields, so that you can easily visit each place on the map. And also added airfields, which you asked about here on the forum and threw off additional information, for which special thanks. OK, here we go! Beauvais-Tille Carpicuet Cormeilles-en-Vexin Cricqueville-en-Bessin Fecamp_Benouville Lonrai Orly

Thank you for clarification, Mrs. Perederko. By far the most honest comment, I´ve read in this forum for years ...

OK this subject is fun. FIRST OFF AS IMPLEMENTED our XM60 sight has the 50mil DIAMETER reticle HOWEVER A 50mil RADIUS reticle ALSO exists As does an 80mil DIAMETER reticle. all for the same sight. 3 Different reticles 1 sight Wild, right? Regardless. AS IMPLEMENTED Our sight is the 50 mil DIAMETER sight. As implemented, it IS correctly scaled. A 50m wide object at 1000m will fill the diameter of the 50mil diameter sight. Here is the proof, the C-17 has a wingspan of 53m There is nothing wrong with the reticle itself. The problem lies within the elevation knob. This thing. This knob is measured in mils. So if you increase or decrease it by 50 mils, the 50mil diameter sight should move so that the top is now where the bottom was, or vice versa The reticle should move by 50 mils if you change the knob by 50 mils, simple. HOWEVER. As you can see, to shift our 50mil diameter reticle by 50mils, we have to change the elevation by 95 mils. This is obviously incorrect. This isn't a matter of just changing the scale of the reticle either, as that doesn't fix the issue. The issue is that 5mils of elevation on the knob, does not equate to 5mils of rotation in the reflector sight. Changing the scale of the reticle won't fix that. This matters because the elevation table on the sight itself, this thing Asks you to adjust the elevation by mils. This means adjusting the elevation by 20 mils does not actually adjust the elevation by 20 mils, meaning your sight zeroing is incorrect for your chosen parameters. This needs a fix, either changing the scale depicted on the knob itself, or by changing the amount of elevation displacement so that it matches up to the number of mils on the elevation knob. I do not know which would be the correct option that would make it more like the real thing, however either option fixes the issue.

https://twitter.com/RAZBAM/status/1631879801576251392?s=20

Dear all, A little update on DCS: AH-64D development. We understand that some of you are concerned about the lack of new features. No resources have been taken off the AH-64D, and work continues ahead steadily. Much of this work has focused on bug fixes and tunning. Before we add too many new features, it is very important that we first have a solid foundation to build upon. Additionally, a big push on bug fixes and tuning has been required to avoid player confusion and frustration. Some of the larger bug fixes and tuning that have been underway include: Tuning how George calculates target range. Corrected TEDAC video errors. Adjusted HUD only views. Tuning damage model like flying sans-tail. Adjusted gun fire shake. Fix multi-crew ASE sync. Removed HDU glare. Fix some engine start issues. Tuning LMC. Further improvements to the PERF page. Better IR texture maps. Lesson, input, and tool tip improvements. Fixes to the CMWS flare system. Tuning of SAS collective channel issues and altitude/attitude holds. Fix SAS tones and hold behaviors. Tuning yaw offset. Fix PNVS stutter. More accurate weight calculations. Trim tuning. Multi-crew hold modes sync. Fix hold modes disengagement logic. SAS fixes. Better SAS Collective altitude hold. More realistic slip ball behavior. APU not requiring fuel fix. Fixed various warnings and advisories. Fixed standby indicators. Tuning TADS and NVS relationship. This is to name a few. A great deal of work on this front is ongoing. Although bug fixing and tuning has been our priority, we have certainly been working on new features that are not gated by existing bugs. Some of these include: Option to remove the auxiliary fuel tank for more cannon rounds. Adding the AGM-114L radar-guided Hellfire. Adding the Improved Datalink Modem (IDM) and LB Net. Adding the Fire Control Radar (FCR). Adding the Laser Spot Tracker (LST). Adding animated engine nacelle cooling doors. Wipers removing rain drops. Many of these items are rather complex and take time. Please be patient. Kind regards, Wags

Apologies, I believe that your heart is in the right place, but I feel that this 'poll' is terminally marred as the answers pretty much boil down to "people will always think that more is better, and more free stuff is better still". Please allow me to critically examine your questions and add my own opinion: Did flying the SU-25T or TF-51 factor into your decision to buy any modules at all The answer is always "yes" - because they are every person's first contact with DCS. So the Su25T or TF51 will always factor in in some way, this is a "null" question, we know the answer, and it is not interesting. The answer is "yes". And you do not ask the most relevant question: "did you like the experience?". Considering the target audience (this forum of enthusiastic fans), the answer is also not interesting, as it's answer boils down to "It didn't scare me enough to not become a rabid DCS fan". Would adding a new full fidelity plane that has combat capability be an overall benefit to DCS You unfortunately omit any details as to what you mean by 'benefit' - the user or vendor? My short answer would be: "a potential pitfall for new players, and exciting freebee for long-time users. Unclear how it would affect sales. Contextual meaning of the word 'benefit' is insufficiently defined". Full fidelity cockpits (not planes, I argue that the flight models of the included free planes are already high fidelity) are something few new customers appreciate. Heck, even long-time players bind most full fidelity cockpits to their controllers, and outside of startup procedures (which few new customers appreciate), there is very little difference while flying - that's pretty much what HOTAS was invented for. I contend that a Full Fidelity cockpit is an "end-game feature", not a neophyte thing, and I would argue that a complex binding screen (especially one that lacks smart pre-binds) scares off new people more than anything else. So a full fidelity cockpit must be chosen very, very carefully to not scare off new users. Perhaps the F-5E could be good fit in this regard, provided we get good pre-binding. Then again, most people would bind the important switches, and players wouldn't notice the difference. So what is the overall benefit? Long-time players may get an additional free hifi cockpit. Would it attract more users, would it increase sales? Highly debatable. Is two weeks separated by half a year enough to get a good idea of the more complex modules before buying This is a thoroughly biased question ("is enough" begs the question). Let me put it differently: People are expected to base the purchase of a car (some 10k-20k investment) on a 45 minute test drive. Yet it seems that these same people can't be expected to base a purchase decision for a 50$ entertainment title after driving it for two weeks? To me, the entire question again boils down to "do you think that people prefer to have more for free". The answer will not surprise anyone. IMHO, two hours are more than enough, and I applaud ED for their generosity in this regard. I fault them, however, for something that this poll completely fails to ask: "do you think it detrimental to DCS's popularity that free trials aren't available on Steam where 3/4 (if not more) of all DCS customers come from"? Because - although I believe we all understand why this is currently that way - that answer to that is "YES!" tl;dl: I think this poll asks mainly rhetorical questions. Let me ask and answer the following instead: Q: Do you think people know that the free planes in DCS are there to entice a download, and then ED try to sell you stuff? In a related subject, did you know about Gillette's "give away the razor and sell the blades" market ploy? A: The Su25T and TF51 are supposed to not be great, just passable to mark the difference between free and premium. Everyone who comes to DCS knows that they are getting the razor, and are expected to buy blades. And many already are ogling at some of the blades: The Hog, Bug, Cat, Viper or Apache. And everyone always loves more free stuff.

Honestly, It wouldn't make sense to develop a Full Fidelity Aircraft and give it away for free to everyone, there's no guarantee it would bring in more players and more sales of other Aircraft, while removing any potential sales of the aircraft that is now free. Any 3rd and 4th Generation Aircraft is complex and takes time and money to develop, those resources for ED are likely better spent on continued MT, Vulkan, DC, and other Core technologies. and for the 3rd parties, better spent on supporting their own projects. If Full Fidelity aircraft leading to a purchase is the sole argument, then that's what the 2 week trial option is for. There is no Official A-4 Module in development.

Moin Jungs, also als `Betroffene` denke ich - Ihr macht es Euch grad unnötig schwer. Aus meiner Erfahrung heraus gibt es nur ganz wenige männliche Querschläger, die Meisten habe ich als sehr Hilfsbereit und nett wahrgenommen. Meist ist es doch so wie man in den Wald rein ruft schallt es auch wieder heraus. Das ist zumindest meine Erfahrung. Querschläger gibt es halt hüben und drüben Gruß Fliga

Done the tires today. Even they have skewed uvw´s... Im trying to wrap this up for the first stage before i create more patterns.

Regardless of any shortcomings DCS or ED may have with this, that, or the other thing, the free trials are top shelf excellent. If you get to try the plane even once for two-weeks, that's pretty sweet all on its own. That you get to do it twice a year, year after year, is amazing. Some planes I've tried at least twice and then bought, and others I have tried at least twice and am pretty sure I won't buy. Free trial system as it is =

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CpVjXLFv_jI/?igshid=NDk5N2NlZjQ%3D This river looks amazing!

Hi, I find it curious that no one has commented on this Survey here, nor on Hoggit ... I know that Spud isn't everyone's cup of tea, but some of the data uncovered by his Survey is really interesting ... here is the video where he disclosed the survey results: Now, for those that don't want to spend an hour on this subject, here are the points that I found most interesting: 1) First of all, this is not a random Survey, as it is biased towards Spud's fanbase, which is heavily onto modern jets and multiplayer. So, you can't really conclude much from those questions related to SP, Helos, Cold War or WW2 ... but even so, there are survey questions that shouldn't be too biased. 2) For example, this one, about Map ownership: Honestly, I wasn't expecting to see a 35% of respondents to have purchased the SA map, I'm glad for Razbam's sake and hope that this will ensure that the Map continues to be improved. 3) This one about airplane modules owned: The values for WW2 aircrafts should be disregarded because of the already mentioned bias, however I found interesting to find that the Harrier seems to have outsold its earlier stablemate, the Mirage 2000. I'm also gladly suprised by the success that the Mirage F1 seems to have had in the short time that it has been on the store, even more so as these are not users focused on the Cold War era. It made me sad to see how small are the quantities for the trainer aircrafts, particularly for the outstanding C-101 which has been on the store for 8 years. The MB-339 seems to have been a failure sales-wise, I tought that I was the only one that didn't purchase it, not because I dislike trainers, but because I never purchase aircrafts at full list price. 4) Even tough this survey's sample is not from helo fans, it is still interesting to see which are the most sold modules: The Apache seems to have been a great sucess for ED, as almost half of the total survey sample purchased it, in spite of most not being helo fans. It surpassed the Blackshark, that has been with us for over a decade. 5) The supercarrier market penetration seems much higher than I tought, but keep in mind that most of the survey respondants are fans of the Hornet and/or Tomcat, so the carrier would appeal to them much more than the usual DCS player: 6) On the hardware side, it is clear that most DCS users seems to have appropiate rigs: Also, most users seem to allocate a rather big resource portion to their controllers: As expected, most users have either Headtracking or VR: 7) Regarding the upcoming Maps, seems I'm not alone on rooting for Kola Map: 8- Of course also interesting is the demographics of the DCS users: 9) Finally, these are the most expected Modules: That's all for now, tough I'd love to hear your opinions on this .. wish ED would promote such a Survey amongst a more random sample of users, to be able to better know the real popularity of MP, II WW and Cold war. Best regards, Eduardo

Oh, you know what? I think there's a speed limit for extending the light. Looks to be around 375 kts IAS. Over that, and it seems to overload it.

Strongly disagree. ED should not be in the business of developing complex modules and giving them away for free. There’s already a free trial period which is quite generous.

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure what point you were trying to get across. There was a lot of writing, but nothing of apparent substance that's not already commonly understood by most. A, M, B die are all just revisions and not some alphabet magic that gives memory speed. Contrary to your belief, people do use Hynix A (AFR) die based DDR4 with Zen3 as it is able to hit 3600, but the timings aren't as tight as Samsung. Samsung's revision (B in this case) is the best chip for DDR4 (Zen3), followed by Samsung E. Die, followed by Hynix CRJ and AFR. In DDR5, Samsung is inferior to Hynix. I'm not privy to AMDs design decision making, neither are you, not sure if either of us could speak to what drove the design of Zen4. Zen 4 was designed around the same time as Alder Lake and Raptor Lake, so the same RAM was available to both, yet Intel MC can handle higher speeds.... Food for thought. And yes, when lower latency DDR5 is available (not sure what makes you think it will be able to get down as low as CL14 as there's no guarantee), it will be better than what's available now... Think that's pretty obvious. At the end of the day, the existence (or lack there of) of what you call "B. Die equivalent" is irrelevant. Equivelant Zen4 with DDR5 6000 outperforms Zen3 on DDR4 3600 CL14. DDR4 is old tech at this point. It's not going to get any better. Is it still relevant for those on DDR4 systems? Absolutely and one should get the best for those systems. DDR4 is at the end of its life cycle...DDR5 Zen4 and RL performance is already (right now, today!) better than what's available on DDR4...Time to join us in 2023 and let DDR4 go.

ED (Not Ugra) need to fix the knee (almost waist) high grass that is everywhere. When sitting in the Spitfire, that grass clips though the wing. Airfields as well as most agricultural fields would not have that high grass. There are plenty of exception ofc, but seeing that savannah grass everywhere is annoying. UGRA: Latest updates are stunning. Especially impressed with ground detail and (The creek-dogfight video) and the bare-trees spring version. Wonderful!

Price has been walked back to that originally stated. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/320411-dcs-newsletter-discussion-3rd-march-2023-normandy-20-hoggit-server/?do=findComment&comment=5164903

Nice! I thought I had "Altersheimer's" already, but apparently, that's not the case. My thoughts exactly. Wouldn't complain about having to pay 15 bucks though for such an substantial upgrade. Oh, by the way, while we're at it: May we perhaps finally expect a fix to that long standing kneeboard issue on Syria (don't even know if Normandy is affeceted as well BTW, would go for that as well if that was the case) with that slightly increased price even though it's not related to Syria at all? Asking for a friend

Here is a chart of the maximum attainable load factor ("G's") for a clean AJ 37 in SPAK mode (disabling SPAK makes it worse, so don't do that): This chart is not particularly easy to read, so I'll try to explain a bit. On the vertical axis is altitude in kilometers and on the horizontal axis is the Mach number. The solid lines marked with numbers indicate the load factor. You should read them like height curves on a map, and "higher up" = higher load factor. Or, in other words, go outside (or "below") a solid line and you are limited to the number of G's that line is marked with. Then the chart is also shaded to show the reasons for these limits, with a key on the right. It's only mildly cryptic but from top to bottom the reasons are: 18° alpha (angle of attack) limit -22° elevon deflection limit (in other words, load factor is limited by how far the elevons can physically move. technically the elevons can deflect to -27° but part of the deflection range is reserved for roll inputs - this is not a fly-by-wire aircraft so it cannot use the full deflection range for a pure pitch input) "pitch gearing", the continuously variable gearbox that attempts to maintain a reasonably linear relationship between stick deflection force and G loading throughout the envelope (see this post for more details about how it works and why it limits the load factor) elevon torque limit (in this area the load factor is limited by how much force the hydraulics are capable of exerting on the elevons) From this we can see that at reasonably low altitudes, 8 G should be attainable almost up to M1.0, but above that it drops off sharply and especially so at medium to high altitude. The AJ 37 has a really kind of awkward flight control system; it has a bunch of electronics and clever mechanical gearboxes in the control loop to make it more stable and easier to fly, but it's not fly-by-wire, and they were prepared to accept some tradeoffs in order to get a system that would fail safe (if you lose all of your electronics you still have a basic pulleys-and-linkages-and-hydraulics mechanical flight control system to fall back on). On the JA 37 they fixed pretty much all of the issues though (since maneuverability is much more important on an air superiority fighter than it is on a strike aircraft) and the max rated load factor is available throughout the envelope.

I would just like to congratulate the folks at Ugra for creating a truly outstanding map which is certainly the most realistic WWII terrain ever made. Can’t wait to experience it!

Raf Coastal Command, BANFF Strike Wing, working dinamic bort numbers https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3329484/ nullnull nullnullnull

its still usable in a "cold war gone hot" scenario, especially if using early-to-mid cold war air frames.

For future reference so you do not think we lie each time a patch date is missed or pushed back, the development of DCS is very complex, not just the things we at ED are doing but all the pieces from 3rd Party devs. This means unforeseen things can happen to cause delays. What would be worse is to push out a patch that causes part of the game to cause crashes or be unplayable. Know that when a patch is delayed it's for a good reason, not a lie. Thanks.

Ich drücke es mal anders aus. Ich finde, dass die gegenwärtige „Hashtag-Kultur“, der kultivierten und lösungsorientierten Debatte mehr geschadet als genutzt hat. On Topic: Von meiner Seite aus sind Frauen hier sehr willkommen und können sich gemeinsam mit uns anderen mit gefährlichem Halbwissen die Köpfe heiß diskutieren. Und wenn die Emotionen hochkochen, können Sie sich am Streit beteiligen oder zurückziehen (genau wie viele unserer männlichen Piloten es tun).

Indeed. Especially when i´m upset because sometimes games take too long to load (+- 10 secs) and then i recall back then when i must wait about 25 minutes for the tape load the game in my Timex 2068 and then show me the most common error: Load Type Error.... and i start the process all over again...

First off, I know I'm going after sort of low hanging fruit here with this suggestion since I would agree that the free plane(s) are not really what should be the highest priority compared to the core free content that ED is ramping up and focusing on. Now that we have the demo system where you can try most of the paid modules out for two weeks per half year, I figure most wouldn't consider a new free plane at all, but I beg to differ. I think there is still something to be done with this concept. Most of what I bring up will be centered around the new user experience as that is what I believe to be the more relevant perspective to grasp here, and unfortunately, it is hard to poll the applicable audience (new users & those who decided after checking out the base game not to pursue it). It would be great if we could poll both to figure out how to improve the base game, but I'll just use my imagination as someone who fits into neither category. The free birds I figure the idea with the two free planes was/is: Give new users something to play with which does not detract from the selling-point of the paid modules while still offering enough to entice those who want the challenge which the authenticity of paid modules presents. So in my mind (and I could just be getting a wrong read on things here) what justifies a module being free is that it is removed enough from the paid-experience while giving enough of a piece of the pie so as to scratch that itch if it's there to be scratched. If it's not there, then people who should get turned away do get turned away, right? Basically the way they can still result in a net gain is they must wet the appetite of potential customers without satisfying them too much, since they must function as a demo and not the whole product. Even if I am wrong about that being the reason for why they were added, I still think that is the right philosophy when it comes to free planes in DCS. This thread is essentially suggesting this idea be embraced as a base premise, and I'll get to how I think this would best be accomplished in a bit. So, the issue: Both the TF-51 and Su-25T in my opinion do not work well at this. What I have to say is easiest stated in an analogy: If DCS is a pie, it has to have the pastry & the filling. The pastry is the immersive flying aspect of the sim, and the filling is the combat aspect of its gameplay. In order for free planes in DCS to entice people to eat more of the pie, they need to taste like the pie. In order to taste like the pie, they must have both the pastry and the filling. In my opinion neither do, but rather one (TF-51) is like eating just pastry, and the other (Su-25T) is like eating only the filling. Neither represent most of the paid modules, and this problem is even better illustrated if we go by what modules are most popular; they reflect the two free planes even less. In essence, the two free planes are too far removed from the paid-experience in concept that I fear they may be turning people away from the paid modules unnecessarily. Someone will fire up the TF-51 and be like: wow this one is too hard and ungainly.' Then they get in the SU-25T and are like: 'Well this is like a game; not what I'm really looking for.' What evidently sells best are the planes which are fairly easy to learn to fly (like jets vs props) but have all the immersive minutia that add up as well as many combat roles to keep people happy with them. My issue gets down to the fact that no matter how much time you spend in the two, you do not get a real DCS experience-they fail to demo DCS correctly. So, what about the fact that FC3 is a thing? Well, it is, and some people do prefer that experience to the full fidelity stuff, but definetly not most. What about the trials then? Don't they kind of nullify the concept being suggested here? Probably not due to the fact that steam users don't get to enjoy this, but perhaps when/if that is fixed it may well do so. Still, one will not be able to develop proficiency with any module in the time frame allotted by this system which is the only real advantage of a new free plane from the user perspective. For ED however, the benefits are greater I think. Like how advertising DCS as a free to play full-fidelity combat sim will carry much more weight to it in light of the pie analogy, and I think that is significant. Free-to-play doesn't mean demos. The demo is mostly there to help people decide which plane they want if they are already planning on putting money into the game. Adding a new free plane which offers a proper permanent demo long term can grow on people in ways the demo system cannot, even if every user had access to it. I am not saying I think the demo doesn't make new customers, though, as I am certain it does. What I am getting at is that I suspect adding something more permanent will attract enough people to offset the cost of developing the free module in question. But it has to be very specific to not cause problems, and this is very important given what I said earlier about the 'wetting' of appetetites. So what would make a better candidate for a free plane/free planes? So, my suggestion is first that only one plane be added to test the concept, then if the results are good for ED, as the game grows, add another free plane only once the era they represent becomes the vogue, and never before. It may look like: start with one, then in like 2 years one more, then maybe a third years later. Nothing super duper drastic or draining on their resources. Now for deciding on what plane first: I think it would be best not to invest an ungainly amount of resources into anything which certainly won't directly make more $ and will be difficult to verify when it comes to any potential indirect financial effects which come after implementation. One thing is for sure, I think; it would, no matter what it is, bring more people into DCS at the very least. It would need to be a plane which in development terms is not an ambitious project (like the F/A-18C or C-130J). This means no new groundbreaking features that ED is not already working on in their current efforts to improve the core game. It must necessarily still be removed from the paid experience, just not in a way that the current free birds are, like I said. This new approach should come in the form of a full fidelity plane which can only do a low amount combat roles and be limited at those few it can fullfill at all. This is the 'narrow slice of the pie'. An aircraft which can 'do it all' like the A-4 Skyhawk mode (air to air, air to ground, lots of potential roles) are probably also naturally always going to be difficult and costly projects, and I would be concerned that they might detract from some paid modules. The era I am considering is the most popular one which is modern era. Therefore my current top suggestion for a free plane is this: The F-117A has already been requested at least twice in this forum, so I won't go on and on about it in detail here. It fulfills all of my criteria with the only potential exception being: 'no new groundbreaking features that ED is not already working on in their current efforts to improve the core game'. This is because (maybe outdated info on my part) stealth is not really simulated in a realistic fashion yet, and they would have to develop that part of the core game which would affect every other plane in the game. Thing is, I am sure they are getting around to that as I don't see why they would just leave something so essential to the game like radar signatures in this current state given that IR signatures are getting revamped and who doesn't sure radar in this game? So perhaps this will end up being a boon, as the F-117A might be the best way to get around to revamping that part of the game and would provide a great test to said features rather well. I do firmly believe that the F-117A specifically would be a good investment long term (if simulating stealth is not a massive hurdle, which, it may still be idk), since it is so niche in its role that it will not steal the thunder from any paid module that is out, in development, or even planned. All while introducing people to modern avionics of military aircraft. As for any other free planes afterwards, they must fit similar criteria, limited but very demonstrative of what DCS does best. If you agree with my premise, which do you think should be added if not the F-117A? If you disagree with my premise, what do you think would be a better way to bring people into the paid full-fidelity modules? EDIT 3-5-23: Clarification: I know I can't know how feasible my suggestion truly is. The point is: If this does hold water, ED will never know if they don't look into it, which is why I started this thread. They might just say 'no it's not possible' and in that case they lose nothing by analyzing it.

In light of the announcement from Enigma Cold War's Discord Server, it may be best to look into a fix/feature that addresses the issue described below: It seems there is significant server lag caused by many users spamming the join option on a full server, effectively resulting in an unintentional DDOS attack. Perhaps a simple queue system would help prevent this? What are your thoughts?

Well, actually, yes it is too much to ask . It happens all the time, people ask (I want to think genuinely and humbly ask… ) why this or that happened. Now think about it a second time. What do you care they're looking for an impossible to squeeze out of place coma or the latest Vulkan iteration changed whatever they have to change all over the already done work, or whatever it is? Any of that tells you nothing about when it's going to be released or the result you're going to see in game when it's released, which, in the end, is what you really are asking for mate. We all, not you alone, are awaiting eagerly for the next development enhancements and all. Don't worry, the day it's released you'll notice like everyone else. Just be patient mate, we all have to be, believe me, you aren't alone in that .

Didn’t mover call him out for pretending to be a real pilot?

Hi, Here is a link to the bombing training mission, for those who wish to try it: https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ai6cuX3YQI26ic5cZFuJ4cNnPaMjuw?e=MMjNhf Please, if you find a bug within, let me know and I will do my best to fix it before releasing the final version. Now, I will go onto the rocket training, hopefully it will not take long Note: the mission requires the 476th vfg target objects mod, you can download it here: https://www.476vfightergroup.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=287

In my opinion, the TF-51 is more important as an entry point into DCS not only because it's high-fidelity, but also because it's a trainer that you can use to learn the fundamentals before flying anything else. As for the SU-25T, I think it's just unlucky that it's an eastern plane and therefore nothing about it is exactly mainstream (despite having LGBs, TV-guided weapons and in general the things we demand from our new plane here). If ED really wanted to make a free western plane with modern weapons, I think it should either be some basic light attack plane (I'm sure we can at least find something AGM-65 capable) and/or something with a lot of off-the-shelf avionics where a lot of systems had already been researched in other projects. As for the 2 week trials, I think it's amazing if you want to evaluate a thing as a somewhat decided player but at least for me, it's hard to imagine having the first impression from a trial module as opposed to actual base game content.

Not really. I’ve never touched either of those. I went straight to the A-10C. Of course at the time it was one of only two modules in DCS but it was enough to get me hooked. I imagine a lot of people go straight for something that interests them. Those free planes aren’t very exciting, nor should they be.

This looks amazing. Thank you from all the Dora lovers out there!

All considerations, pros and cons, aside - ED, using some 2-3 years to license, research, obtain data, code, consult, debug full fidelity FREE module - might end up bankrupt and DCS project ended. I doubt ED has some huge financial margin to be allowed to work without payment - workhours needed to make full fidelity module/research/license etc. is comparable to making whole other genre full PC game for free. DCS full fidelity module is not WT-like copy-paste, change few parameters in Excel, new 3d model and low quality cockpit. Complexity is enormous. Regardless of whether it would be profitable in a long term or not, even if ED would like to make something like that for free. It may financially kill them and whole DCS project. And this would be a damn shame, a truly dark day. And then what?

Its kind of know that the AI does things it shouldnt be able to do. ED is working on a new FM for the AI that will hopefully fix most of these issues. But nobody knows when that will be and all we can do is wait and continue to play with/against this rather questionable AI.

You can stop your mayhem Major. It was a mistake in the newsletter. Original pricing will be honoured. [emoji6] Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

Well, the Huey is iconic, simple, and it flies like a dream. If you want to buy your first helo, it's a great choice. I can imagine that the Black Shark is not everyone's cup of tea, being somewhat quirky to operate, particularly with how the autopilot works.

You're right, that was a very interesting video. Watched it a few hours ago and it did offer a few surprises. I liked that the NTTR map was so popular, maybe that means it will get some love. A bit sad but predictable about the MB-339. The devs seem like really good guys and I'm sure the plane is nice, but there is that reality where a labour of love - as they called the 339 - meets the customer's actual preferences. A trainer that sells for the price of a top tier module on sale, and only $5 less than the Mirage F1 full price - has some rough competition. Happy and surprised the Kola map is the most anticipated. More green mountains and less sand might make for more colourful flying in the future. Also surprised the Huey came in 2nd for the choppers. I would have thought the Blackshark would have been there.

REALLY REALLY COOL Like seeing an airshow again. Wish they had more up here in montana

The real aircraft doesn't do it so shouldn't be in the DCS versions IMO.

Können wir uns darauf einigen, daß nicht die "Männlichkeit" toxisch ist, sondern das Verhalten einiger Menschen, gegenüber Frauen? Das würde mir persönlich, extrem helfen mich weniger stigmatisiert zu fühlen.

I agree with the guy a few posts above: This newsletter was probably planned to be about the beta update.

Working on the USAAF 653rd Bombardment Squadron. This is a weather recon bird, based heavily on NS521 at the USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB. This does, however, have dynamic borts to allow for a fleet. EDIT: This contest entry is now a skinpack of the 25th Bombardment Group (Reconnaissance), with three similar skins with varying degrees of invasion stripes, all based on historical aircraft. Mosquito FB Mk.VI Skin Pack: USAAF 25th Bombardment Group (Reconnaissance) (digitalcombatsimulator.com) Here's the original at WPAFB: and here's the work in progress (Edit: updated base color and weathering): And a custom pilot livery with USAAF browns and A-6 boots. And the new aircraft in the skin pack:

Nur weil bei Restbeständen Mondpreise aufgerufen werden, ist der aufgerufene Preis für die gebrauchte, gerechtfertig ? Oder weil auf Ebay manche "Ihr Glück versuchen" ? Unten mal ein interessanter Chart über die Karte....bis 09.02 lag die Karte NEU bei 800-900 Euro ! Und jetzt komm mir bitte nicht mit den Scalper Tagen um die Ecke. Zudem kommt noch, schaut man sich die Preise zu bestimmen Sales von 7900XT/XTX sowie der 4080 an, ist eine gebrauchte 6900 auch mit XTXH Chip für 900,00 Euro ein Mondpreis ! Du bekommst für 900 Euro ne Suprim X als 3090. ach egal... Kauft mal....

Hello ladies and gentlemen, The changelog for the AV8B Harrier did not made it to ED for this update, here is what it contains : DCS: AV-8B N/A by Razbam - Fixed: Fuel boost pumps switch should be on for cold start - Fixed: RPS switch should be on for cold start - Fixed: AFT EQUIP switch should be on for cold start - Fixed: Anti-Skid switch should be on for cold start - Improved: Minor adjustments to dry engine performance based on hover performance checks for 0 datum engine - Fixed: Water loaded/unloaded in mission editor sometimes not taking effect properly - LOADOUT REWORK : See the forum post - Fixed: Rocket rippling -Changed : Can now change GBUs/APKWS laser codes and rocket pods modes with engine hot Apologies for the inconvenience. Cheers, Alpha Juliet