Leaderboard

A little bit of Pantsir-S1 action. I've implemented the controlled bursts of the 2A38M.

Yes, I think we can look into that. So basically what you would like is the functionality of the kneeboard as is know when brought up with "K", but directly when strapped on your legs, without having to press K? If we do it, it will be further down the priority list, as our plate is really full atm, but I absolutely like the idea. Thank you for the suggestion!

This is already planned and requested, just no timeline to share as of yet. Thanks.

I am a Steam user. I have bought about 25 modules through Steam. I also have the main site install that I use just for free trials. I don't think that is an issue at all. See below. As previously mentioned, I took the SU-25T for a 700kph romp and dumped 256 rockets on the target in one go. Ran through again and fired a volley of 40 Zuni class rockets. The Hornet can only fire 32, the Harrier 16. The Warthog can't fire any Zuni class heavy rockets at all, and it certainly can't fire any of the several giant ass unguided rockets the Su-25T can. Not to mention the SU-25T carries Kh-29 guided missiles with ~1000lb warheads, or that it carries tons of bombs, including rocket powered concrete busters and cluster munitions. And multiple 23mm gun pods that track targets. And nighttime location & tracking with the Mercury pod. And pretty decent SEAD capability with the Phantasmagoria pod and anti-radiation missiles. And an internal cannon. And it can run the pants off an A-10. I have to ask, by what standard is that poor performance? For a free plane, it gives one hell of a taste test of ground pounding stew.

I cannot wait to introduce these legendary assets into mission scenarios. You are truly spoiling us with both initial variants!

Alright, I've gone ahead and benchmarked my current system with CapFrameX to use as a baseline comparison for the 7950X3D upgrade I'll be installing later this week. I should also be able to use the baseline to see how much multithreading improves FPS when it gets released. Looking at the current results, I'm pretty much CPU bottlenecked throughout most of the runs on all resolutions, hench no change in FPS by increasing resolution: Won't be able to test VR improvements sadly, as I don't own a VR headset.

Good Afternoon, Good Morning to you all. Coming SOON! Newly upgraded USS Constellation FFGX-62 with livelies of the - USS Congress and FFGX-63 - USS Chesapeake FFGX-64. Stay Tuned!!

The synchronized elevators on our huey are symmetrical. They aren't supposed to be. I believe this image shows it off well enough You think it's just an artifact of the old photo? here's a newer photo You want documented proof of it? Page 56 Why has this never come up before even from people who look through data? Because the data usually only ever references the right elevator alone. I don't know why.

Uh. Well, allow me to ask pointedly: Do you think you know better than ED who their audience is and how to attract them? If not, then we simply do not agree with your opinion and ours is as valid or invalid as yours. No need to get accusatory.

^this ...and someone that needs to be dragged and coaxed into "trying it" won't likely stay for long, no matter if there is one or five more free full fidelity aircraft.

Although I'm exceedingly good looking I'm not the sharpest cookie in the tool shed. If I could figure it out, anyone could. It's not rocket surgery. If a company says "Hey, wanna try 45 planes and helicopters and a bunch of great maps all for free?", and Joe Flightsimhead can't rub enough neurons together to hash it out, then Joe should go back to bed. I think you're being too harsh on our poor little Su-25T. Sure there are weak points - the exterior model sucks - but it has enough strengths to qualify as a solid ground pounder. One thing that might go unnoticed is the size of the MFD and it's proximity to the HUD. You can have a clear view of flying and targeting at the same time. I like that. I just busted a tank with a great big missile using the Mercury pod, which had a surprisingly good IR picture. This is not a low performance machine. And it's free. Free maps, free planes, dozens of free trials choices, months and months and months of free flying all the best planes and choppers............. and it's still not enough? I'm sorry but I don't buy it. There is a point where one should step back and just say "Thanks".

Hmmm, so you want something it's ok, just because you don't like the Su-25T? If you can find a developer studio that is willing to invest ressources into the development of a "free modern Jet with sparse avionics, minimal weapon load, but a HUD" for advertising DCS and write the investment off as loss, your welcome. I doubt you will find one, as the investment is considerable.

Yes, we are waiting 11 years already when the firts info was given about Strike Eagle by Razbam for DCS, few months more its not a problem (the problem is the lack of date of release of EA).

Because here we are on page 5 and yet all the reasons why this isn’t a good suggestion were already pointed out on page 1. Especially the fact that all the modules are available as free trials pretty much eliminates the point of this topic.

I enjoy beating the schmidt out of a dead horse as much as anyone, but this is getting silly. If two free maps and two free planes and 6 free trial maps and about 45 free trial planes and helicopters, not to mention the supercarrier and assets packs, if all that isn't enough... I suggest a walk outside in the fresh air. Maybe a book. Maybe a drink. Maybe some music. As stated, this is getting truly silly.

And people can always cherry pick which modules they buy. Or don't buy. Freedom of choice. If someone wants an FC3 plane, they can pay for it like all of us did. I bought most of them on sale and the best price I got was $10.28Cdn. I see no need to ask for something that is a decent product and sells for $10 to be made free. I mean, it gets to the point where it's kinda embarrassing, I think. You know what, if everyone is ask for free stuff, well I want free stuff too. I want a pony. And I mean I want it NOW!

When I read these things I get the impression of people trying to force their friends to play DCS who really just don’t want to

I bought the ka50 and p51d before there was the word "world" involved in DCS. And i bought it because i watched videos about the 2 modules and saw all those buttons and switches!

DCS is not for everyone. No matter what they do to market it, 99.9999% of the video gamer customer base doesn’t have the aptitude or desire to play a complex sim game like this. And you can’t force them to either. They can try the game for free and there’s plenty of content out there in social media to show people what this game is like. You don’t need a free download to see what the game involves, YouTube is full of videos and tutorials that reveal everything about it. If anything the real purpose of the free trial is just for people to test it on their PC system or controllers.

I hate to be too direct, but... What part of "Two free planes + two free maps + 50 planes, helicopters, and maps available for free trials" is insufficient? There comes a point where vehicular semantics and wishing for a pony has to take a back seat to common sense and reality. There is absolutely positively overwhelmingly zero impediment to anyone with two brain cells figuring out how to access DCS in such a manner as to have a good understanding and enjoyment of it.

That's very likely because they expected something like World of Warplane and are hit with a ultra realism study sim. I am 99% sure, someone that is a potential DCS customer, for real, does research what he's getting into - not just the game, where to get it, what details are modeled, but also what hardware (controllers, HOTAS etc.) he likely needs to have or invest in to enjoy it. I've seen multiple friends I got into DCS (with modules like the Huey, Hornet, A-10C) and investing into a HOTAS and head tracking, still back out after a couple months, because it was "not enough quick action". They didn't need free trials or free modules and still figured it isn't for them, so why on earth should a bored steam player that stumbled upon a DCS ad on the steam store suddenly be interested in a full fidelity study sim, if he never cared about it before? And if he did, he sure is the type to inform himself and yes, click on links to more information.

So you have a good ROI calculation backing that statement? That is a considerable investment you need to make, so it better pays off.

There are to blocking points in that statement: ED needs to issue a contract and the team needs to apply for, secure and pay (!) a license agreement from the company owning the intellectual property to the T-45C, likely Boeing. That isn't really cheap either... Edit: and likely verify and proof they have written permission, agreements to every part of the model, from textures, to 3D-Models if they didn't create those from scratch by themselves. Or they need to redo these without violating property rights.

Yeah, sounds like typical study sim customer that would have a blast with a DCS full fidelity module and the learning curve...

So how do none steam users get to know about the trials I wonder? Google "DCS" or "digital combat simulator" or click on a link on a website like for example the steam store page where it says "visit website" ? And just as a sidenote how is the TF-51D not a "true" demo aircraft. I am sure it is very deliberately chosen, because you cannot get your fix of quick Air-Quake and if you so desire need to decide on buying a full module. Same for the Su-25T as a "not too attractive" FC3 model. If someone on Steam is interested in DCS in the first place he will sure manage to click a link to the products web page to get more info about the product... And if not, well, he can still google DCS mods and install a T-45C or A-4E Skyhawk community mod totally for free...

Not what was being discussed, catastrophic failure through over-G is modeled in both aircraft. But with the F-16 lacking a G-limiter (instead only offering an AOA limiter via the CAT I/III switch), it's up to the pilot to make sure they don't over-G the stores. Which means that if you're not paying attention, you can pull 6.5G without realizing, for example, and then that JDAM you were hoping to release over the target area is hung. The Hornet has a dynamic G-limiter, so the same scenario is less likely. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the consequences of pulling the paddle in the Hornet and going over the 7.5G limit. Which are modeled just fine in the context of DCS, considering that the Hornet can go to 9G without any immediate effects (except when stores are attached, as mentioned above, but I'm guessing the OP refers to a clean configuration), and the 7.5G limit is there as a means to guarantee that the aircraft's structural integrity will remain optimal in the future, especially during carrier landings. Pulling the paddle and exceeding the limiter is to be used in emergencies, and that includes life or death situations. No pilot will choose to get shot down, if they can help it in any way and there's little sense offering the pilot an option that will cause their wings to disintegrate. ED can certainly include over-G effects on weapons stores and the targeting pod, as mentioned above, but that's it, that won't do anything for clean Hornets, since the effect on the airframe itself is more long term. And since every plane spawns as new, the current implementation doesn't need to change on that front.

I would like to point out some errors stated in this comment. Firstly of all NONE of the ex-Qatari aircraft wer upgraded to M model, the four mentioned in your statement were ex-French Air Force Mirages F-1Cs adquired along with a two-seater. In SpAF received tail numers 88, 89, 90 and 91. Secondly, no one S-530F was ever sold to Draken Thirdly, the F1-CE and EE supported the weapon even before the upgrading program The rail and the launcher (LM-38) are the same for both missiles and SpAF launchers wer modified at the turn of th '80s when it was thought that the weapon was going to be purchased, but by strange reasons it never happened Fourth, the CYRANO IVM was introduced in SpAF Mirage fleet in the middle '80s, the M has nothing related to the M designation of the aircraft. SpAF and FAF were the only customers with the M model in the radar (do not confuse with MR radar of the Iraqui aircraft) The M designation was related to a big change of LRU's, the change of the scope, the introduction of new functions, and the introduction of new EPM's. So essentially the radar is similar to the CT, but the SpAF Mirages introduced an LRU's for Radar Ranging while the CT obtains ranging by means of the Laser Range Finder the Thomson TMV-630. The CR has not that capability. Fifth, SpAF pilots do not need training on the missile since it was employed during the time ex-Qatari aircraft were in, so they have a good knoledge about its employment And last but no least, Morroccan Air Force validated the MICA missile on its modernised Mirages. The upgrading was based on the SpAF upgrade

Dev dropped his PB and J sandwich on his keyboard and causes a Sugar Rush in the DCS Core Engine resulting in a Glitch...

"Balance" being you primary concern is why this is a ridiculous notion. The Hornet is limited to 7.5G for the sake of the lifespan of the aircraft. The limiter can easily be outrun to 8G+ which would happen IRL too. (You can even see it in a few HUD videos) there would be nothing close detrimental that the aircraft would endure at such a minimal over G. Are there missing G effects? Sure. A/G stores would be damaged or ripped off at 5.5G+, targeting pod limit is somewhere around 7.8G. Now if ED dared to implement the same thing in the Viper, their would be riots. Difference is the -16 dosen't have a dynamic G limiter so in a simulation where you can't feel the G, you better be staring at the HUD or you're going to break something. While we're at it, at 8G+ simulate the pilot not being able to move their head.

The question explains itself. Clearly ED has determined two weeks to be the optimal time. Any longer than this obviously doesn’t produce more sales or indeed you’d see them doing exactly that. They have information to make such decisions after all. Quite… Every module is available as a free trial. You aren’t limited to those two. So? Go get the DCS standalone version, it’s free!

But it represent the ability of DCS to simulate WW2 aircrafts, not everyone is interested just on modern jets ... there are people who enjoy WW2 aircrafts, cold war aircrafts, and helicopters. poor handling? .. you mean that it is not a dogfighter? .. yes, surprise, it is an attack aircraft .. and representative of a fairly modern jet. Those aircrafts don't currently exist on DCS, are you suggesting that ED should invest development man-hours into developing free full-fidelity aircrafts? I'd love to see ED expand the TF-51 a bit, to include a backseat .. it would provide that introduction ability with a small development effort.

Fortunately the two-week free trials of the 45 available planes and choppers do. I am on Steam and made a second install from the main site for the free trials. Super easy and super fast. Even I could do it.

Not necessarily, because from what I've seen, a lot of people either started with DCS when there wasn't a "free" plane available with the original DCS: Black Shark, FC2 and A-10C Warthog, or they were hooked by a specific plane modeled like the F-14 Tomcat, the F-16C, the F/A-18C or the AH-64D Longbow and bought the modules right away, or through the free trials... A "free" complex, full fidelity aircraft, would attract what supposed customer base? The study sim fans, will go directly for a two week trial and if they enjoy the study level learning curve they stay and thus buy it. The people not enjoying study sims of the typical DCS fidelity and looking for some quick "Air Combat Action" won't be happy and not stay for long. Maybe consider an FC3 aircraft and occasionally hop on public servers, either using the free trials or buy an FC3 jet on a sale...

Il Corsair lo trovo un modulo interessante. Sapendo soprattutto che si porterà dietro una portaerei WW2. Quello che mi lascia un po' deluso e che mi tiene lontano dagli acquisti dei moduli del periodo è un po' la mancanza di un vero contesto. È vero che uno Zero AI è sicuramente un ottimo passo nella giusta direzione ( meglio del 190) ma di strada ancora da fare ce n'è. Però non è molto bello criticare sempre tutto dai: dobbiamo imparare a guardare di più agli aspetti positivi, altrimenti si potrebbe anche arrivare a mettere in dubbio la validità di DCS stesso. Finché nessuno ci costringe a comprare non vedo cosa ci cambia se un modulo esce oggi o l'anno prossimo. È meglio, in questo caso ovviamente, avere qualcosa da aspettare (senza ansia) che non avere niente in arrivo, no? Inviato dal mio Tapatalk

Guys, i can tell you this will be worth of waiting. It will totally facelifts the old D9 model. Details are awesome no matter how close you will be looking at it.

More Mud Hen pictures. Extreme detail via Razbam Twitter:

It'd sell like hotcakes!

I acknowledge the bug, it's indeed broken. Good news is that I have found a way to fix it. Terribly sorry it took me this long to get around to it (damn you real life). A new version will be out soon. Feel free to pm me if anyone would like to help out testing it before release.

+1 … fully agree

https://twitter.com/Team_Luftwaffe/status/1632837540297277443?s=20 British Typhoon in the front, German Eurofighter in the back. Joint Baltic air policing QRA

Steam Users can simply install DCS World from www.digitalcombatsimulator.com like anyone else. There is nothing preventing them from installing, other than mindset. Similar to a free give away, that requires you to drive a 20 minute detour. Guess Steam Users would complain to their local Palmart, that the other shop has a free give away and the Palmart don't...

Exactly that.

As I said in my patch status post, we need a little more time for this patch cycle, when we are ready we will give you all a new date. thank you

If it didn't matter, they wouldn't have kept doing it for all this time.

It was delayed because it wasn't ready, the Specifics on what wasn't ready doesn't matter. It wasn't ready, it was delayed. If you want specifics as to what delays software, then you need to prepare to be disappointed because most major developers don't share specifics on pre-release software code issues, and the one's that do usually regret it (cough 343, cough cough).... It's the nature of the beast, The Communication is there, but specifics are usually only communicated internally due to the nature of the beast.... When too much laundry is air out, the community goes nuts (again.. cough...343... cough).

Bye, I go away from here.

Hahahaha yes we are only humans, but DCS is like a drug we could not do without

Since 2 updated ago you can tick in Mission editor special option (the last tab) whether you want water loaded or not.