Leaderboard

SAM and helipads icons: nullnull

Stab of JG.3 Markings are a bit fictional, based off of Oskar Romm´s << Markings making him Gruppenkommandeur (if im not mistaken). Not much sense at that point to create one offs. The camo patterns for << and for its sister marked < were quite alike. Wings were re-used from one of the JG.301 planes to save diskspace.

More Modeling progress.

C-130J WIP Media ASC Discord:

Hey Guys! I have released the Updated version of the Aquitaine Class Frigate Normandie with the livery of the Aquitaine. Page #1 #14. As always if you have any major technical issues please PM me and I will correct it. Your Welcome Gogi12! Updating the LPD Foudre for release today! Stay Tuned! Testing in-progress!!

Sinai develop update

Having to choose between taking a full DITER rack of JDAMS or sidewinders is part of the constraints of AV-8B operation, IRL, and now in DCS. If you are unhappy that such a fix would happen at this stage of the module's life, I'm with you, it would've been better if we had done it right on release. Plot twist we didn't. Am I supposed to let other bugs and inaccuracies in because some among the userbase grew used to them ? If given the choice between pleasing some and having the Harrier to have realistic specs, you know what I'll choose. Our end goal is to have the Harrier as realistic as we can. It'll take time, but we'll get there.

Unless the ILS is not working for whatever reason, the main reason certain airfields don't feature ILS is because they aren't ILS equipped in real life. In which case nothing is really wrong. What would be nice to have are ATC improvements that support PAR approaches and/or for there to be NAVAIDs present as ground units that can be placed in the mission editor (right now we only have TACAN and DF). For ILS that could be an AN/TPN-22 for instance.

fact is that they intentionally made the f-16 radar worse than it really is, just because apparently many f-18 pilots complained...i think all radar systems should just be simulated as realistically as possible, instead of listening to frustrated virtual pilots who failed in pvp

Great job guys on the L-61 and the other ships as well. It's great to have Spanish ships to add to NATO fleets. I've update the L-61 for AI take off of 12 Harriers or F-35Bs. Not sure where I left off on the landing stuff. Figuring out how to do the landing stuff for the STOVL planes/carrier was a bit of a nightmare, lol. But I think I've got figured out. I've done AI updates for just about ever MOD (and stock) carrier out there. I'm in the early process of getting in contact with the MOD creators to share my update with them and the community at large. But once again great job. desdemicabina-simulation Some videos with your ships and fun/boring time lapse videos of my updates can be found here. Thanks again

work continues on the Bronco, stay tuned ! Thx for your support !

Hey Guys! I have released the Updated version of the Aquitaine Class Frigate Normandie with the livery of the Aquitaine. Page #1 #14. As always if you have any major technical issues please PM me and I will correct them. Thanks. ENJOY!!

Looking amazing! @OnReTech Very excited for this map! Excellent work!

HIP ja mei, sind hald pure News Videos. Finde ihn aber irgendwie sympatisch. Er trägt die neuesten Sachen zusammen und verpackt das ganze optisch mit feinstem, zur jeweiligen news passendem AviationPorn.

Unsourced text, claims that 'pilots said' and feelings are worthless. Even so, the text above has a maximum detection range of 105km (~57nm), and that's for a very specific radar mode and hardware which IIRC the 68V5 (the one modeled in DCS - it's good to know these details before you start such discussions) does not possess. I don't even recall where this graph comes from, but it is the basic reason why they write 'V9 offers 30% range increase' (over the V5, but they don't write that). USAF Vipers in 2007 (the ones DCS modeled in-game) use the V5. The other non-factual statement you made (while claiming it as fact) is that ED did something to the F-16 radar because F-18 fans complained. This is incorrect. The F-16 radar was changed because it was over-modeled, presenting capability similar to an AN/APG-63 or AWG-9, which neither the F-16 or F-18 should some close to matching. PS: For even more fun, APG-66 with flight test results from some random internet source.

Personally the only time when I could see the pilot models being an issue, is with side-by-side cockpits and then especially in helicopters. There I'd love to see female pilot models too - otherwise I don't really care... I'd much rather have female pilot voices, but as Bignewy said there has been some progress on the amount of female voices in the game. At the moment we have: - male US (Wags and the new supercarrier pilot voice) - male UK - male RU - male FR - male CN Hopefully at some point in the not too distant future we can pick a female pilot voice from a drop-down menu in the Options-screen :-)

Перепалка напоминает- "Страны Запада установили потолок цен на российскую нефть."

I am continually inspired about your dedication to make DCS the best that it can be! So, I did some digging... The linkUnit property is not available for ground units, and fails in the editor more-than-miserably when inserted by hand force quit DCS Took a step back and tried to determine first what kept ground units from being placed/moved into water eventually stumbled upon a function named getCanSwimUnit which looks up the unit type in the me_db_api module's unit_by_type table, specifically looking at the chassis.canSwim property We do not have access to the unit definition file for normal infantry units, but then I noticed that we DO have access to a few other units, so I tried with a soldier from the VPC addon I added chassis.canSwim=true to the object definition and made a quick mission: carrier moving at 27kts four (non-static) soldiers placed on the carrier deck huey set to cold takeoff on carrier Maybe someone with modelling skills can make this a real thing!

в Эфиопии вообще 13 месяцев, а у китайцев лунный календарь... давайте не будем ориентироваться на всякую экзотику ?

Hey! The Admiral Kasatonov (renamed in its latest version to Admiral Gorshkov Class Frigate) was a joint venture between me and the Admiral. In regards to the Type 45, these are different assets. The Admiral made one and I made one.

I've just released an update for that one. Working ST and MT. Next releases will include lasing and better autopilot.

That's what was fixed in v20

Thanks, Beldin! I appreciate that. For a minute there I thought there was little interest in the AI Ship mods. Either way, I will continue to create them no matter what. I'm currently working on the USS Mount Whitney and USS Blue Ridge. I should be releasing the newly updated Aquitaine Frigate Normandie and Foundre Class LPD soon as well. Thanks to you all for your continued interest in the mods.

Hi developers, Is there any way to have a option to select which CAT's can be active and inactive on the SC ? So far when planes are parked on the CAT area (which we usually see on any of the present photo's), planes STILL try to take of from them and crash into the parked planes. Usually the active/used planes are parked on the deck and CAT's, and have one or two CAT's active/in use for landing and takeoff. See it as what runway is active/inactive on a airport depending on the wind direction. The supercarrier needs this option to activate / deactivate CAT's in use ! Thanks for reading this. Kind regards, RWC.

JestHer | Female RIO | Complete Jester Voice Replacement (digitalcombatsimulator.com) JestHer is a complete sound replacement of the Jester voicelines. https://youtu.be/ZEswMBLRyIs Edit: Download Link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lpt6hbbbae2q8l8/JestHer Voice Mod.zip?dl=0 Alternate Download link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SYfkp8v3Bft6-Go8VeTJWStjTho2U4Rl/view?usp=drive_link Update 06/01/23 - Fixed Closing canopy file name (thank you to @bonesvf103) - Fixed incorrect filename "nails six ol cock" (thank you to @Despayre) - Added new carrier landing voicelines as suggested by @bonesvf103

When refueling from tanker KC-130 (not tested with others) at the end of refueling occurred error "ALT. 2" (generator error as I understand it) after which a chain of failures began, and failed almost all systems, below is a screenshot with a list of failures. Occurrence was detected in several users in multшplayer with multitraiding. We will also attach a video of the problem. P.S. We also encountered the crash of the game when entering the spectators on Mirage F1, but for this we will make a separate thread Here is the track of the "empty" mission not in multiplayer. DCS works in multithreading. Additionally attached the mission file https://youtu.be/t6D-yDkpqfI AAR failures.trk ARR Test M F1.miz

hello, for some time now the F-16 radar has been patched, and in this state has clearly become too weak in terms of range acquisition and acquisition time...i have had real pilots tell me that a maximum acquisition range of 38 nm is unreal, and the range where the radar burns through interference signals (ECM) is just 20 nm. what is the official stance from ed? is it a bug, or has this machine been deliberately made worse than it really is? would look forward to a factual debate, and would hope that real f-16 fighter pilots would also comment on this.

Yep, those are the only 2 catered for by units.

I would amend that slightly, packs are brilliant for multiple small objects. Such as barbed wire fences, tents etc, but for Armoured cars/tanks/trucks, I'd like to be able to pick and choose to try and save space, I have 2tb ssd HD, man has it filled up with accessories! But MODS like these are brilliant and make the sim SO much better. IMHO

We have discovered that the AV-8b II Night Attack Harrier has never operated in the Caucuses, so going forward the module will be disabled for this map.

The RWR database has been updated by Nightstorm.

Updated for DCS Open Beta 2.8.3.37854.1 as of 3/19/23. Compatible with previous versions as well. Updated to include multiple assets added by @currenthill Thanks!

This is normal behavior, there is specific range were you can air refuel and you overheated your Alternators, check the flight manual

Because from your privileged position you don't have to. The default in DCS is male. White male to be exact. And when that applies to the players, they don't 'notice' it because it's their default. That the majority of the DCS community don't have the empathy or compassion to see that isn't a surprise, but it's still a sad indictment of the world at large.

I'm looking forward to what they remove next. "Yeah, you boys won't be needing these wings anymore..."

That functionality was introduced in M2 so I'd be quite surprised if it wasn't still a thing in M4. EDIT: I've already made a bug report on this topic:

I can confirm that this new Mbucchia toolkit finally brings unprecedent sharpness to the VR-3 quad view. Not only the outer LCD panels has now full resolution but dynamic foveated rendering is working which brings much more FPS (90 FPS most of the time today in KA50 and MI8 on persian gulf multiplayer). There is so much headroom in GPU that I was able to set 1.2 multiplier for the focusing area which (its like 1.2x supersampling) and it looks amazingly sharp compared to what I had before.

Thanks for posting this! I don't want to take all the credit here, because the foundation (ie: implementing the Varjo quad views) is all done by Eagle Dynamics, and that is frankly THE complex part, that they have achieved without anything from me. Adding the foveated rendering on top was quite easy. @BIGNEWY I always love to share some useful feedback for the dev team, so maybe you could forward some of this to them: 1) With XR_VARJO_quad_views working, adding XR_VARJO_foveated_rendering is really super simple! The dev team should check out the OpenXR spec for details. It's very straightforward, just need to add a few things here and there to make a great feature! This is all my program does really. Let's wait for feedback, but I feel it is well worth the effort to implement inside the game for all Varjo users. My code is also open source and can be used as reference (see link). My code is more complex than if it was done in-game, and implementation in the engine is likely < 50 lines of code total. 2) I did find what looks like a bug in the engine, that made things a little more tricky: it seems that with multithreading, the engine is sometimes mixing up the FOV values that it submits with each frame. This causes the FOV values queried to render frame N+1 to be submitted for frame N instead. The trace below shows an example of it (see the "display time" values and how the submitted FOV values for view 2 and 3 do not match the correct frame display time? Red arrow shows what needs to be done instead). This bug breaks foveated rendering because it introduces a 1-frame warp of the focus area, and I put a workaround for it in my program (that literally does what the red arrow shows, by matching the FOV values with the correct frame display time).

Для меня середина марта это 15е число.

As title says, I would like to have changes as to how device profile is saved. Right now, I have to click on a device, save its profile, click on next device, save profile in separate file and repeat for all devices I use. And then use the same for every module I have and also for General nad UI tabs too. What I would like to have is that I go to module, set whatever I need and when saving profile, it would save all the devices in one file.

Nice, I will send you my updated lua files for the stuff I've done. I've got LHA-6 just about done. I might try and split LHA6/7 into separate units so I can do a Assault Helicopter/Osprey version with a few F-35s and then a "lighting carrier" version with 20-24 F-35s Currently you can do 12 F-35s short take off with either 8 vertical TO F-35s or 8 Helos/Osprey. But I'll send you the files or check with you first before I release anything. The landing stuff is tricky due to the de spawn timer(still trying to figure out how to control that) and the STOVL planes are a real pain when it come to landing, lol. I've been able to setup some pretty epic "What if" AI naval battles thanks in many parts to your work. So once again awesome job.

Thank guys noted. It is doubtful we can do anything more advanced than we have due to lack of information, but this has been passed along.

Apparently the engine is what causes the spin, from bulgarianmilitary.com

Hi, setup as follows: 0. Create a mission with a group of severals vehicles and use litening TGP with AGM-65F and start the mission. 1. Setup: Left DDI: Store => AGM-65F; Right DDI: TGP 2. Make TGP SOI by pressing Sensor Control Swicht (=SCS) - right 3. Move the TGP over a moving target, press SCS - right twice if TGP is over the target, so that you have 2 vertical lines and the TGP follows the target 4. Press Throttle Designator Controller (=TDC) Depress, so that the offset cursor (cross) appears 5. Move the "offeset cursor" over any vehicle of the group using TDC Left / Right / Up / Down or it's axis 6. Press SCS - left to make the AGM-65F SOI. If you done everything right, the maverick is following the target 7 (Sometimes) if the Maverick does not track the target, press TDC - Depress again 8 Press Weapon Release Button 9 Press SCS - right again to make the TGP SOI 10 Repeat steps 5 - 9 for any other vehicle of the group I also added the track of the youtube video, so you can take controll at any time or just use the mission... Hope that helps... mav_yt.trk

I think the idea behind this campaign was missions that are easy to hop in and get to the target in a reasonably short amount of time, without dealing with ingress durations of 40min + . As someone who has to squeeze sim time around real life stuff I appreciate someone bringing this approach. There are already plenty of campaigns that go the opposite direction. To be slightly more constructive than "hot start = no buy" (I mean, c'mon), it should be possible to provide two versions (hot start & cold start) with a minimum of extra effort. Heatblur did it with the Tomcat campaign I believe. There are other campaigns which offer different versions of the same campaign, changing things like difficulty or refueling required etc. Just resaving a second set of the missions with cold start would be possible, should Looking Glass wish to do so - although it could mess with some waypoint timings, I don't know.

Please note : from DCS 2.9.8.1107 both bin and mt-bin folders contain Multithreading. Single threaded DCS is now legacy and removed from DCS. DCS Multithreading F.A.Q Users who want to test the new multithreading version of DCS can do so by following the steps described below. Multithreading contains some known issues, but we will gladly receive reports. Please make reports as full and clear as possible that are reproducible. Also, please send crash information using the automatic send-crash tool, if possible. Launching Multithreading DCS For the standalone version from our eShop DCS: You can find the new folder "bin-mt" in your DCS / DCS Open Beta main root folder where you have installed DCS. i.e. "D:\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\". To launch the multithreading version, navigate to the "bin-mt" folder and launch DCS.exe from it. i.e. "D:\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\bin-mt\DCS.exe". For your convenience, you may want to create a shortcut for "D:\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\bin-mt\DCS.exe" on your desktop. Be advised that the DCS launch shortcut that is automatically created on your desktop after DCS installation will launch the DCS updater from i.e. "D:\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\bin\DCS_updater.exe". You may have gotten used to the process where you launch DCS and it checks for available updates before launching the game. If you make a shortcut for the multithreading version (i.e. "D:\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\bin-mt\DCS.exe") then this shortcut will launch DCS, and it will not check for updates before launching the game. For STEAM users: Use the Play MT Preview in launch options. To do so, right click on DCS World Steam Edition in Steam and select PLAY; you should see the below pop-up. What is multithreading (MT)? MT is a programming technique that allows multiple threads to exist within the context of a single process. A thread is an independent path of execution within a program, and MT allows a program to perform multiple tasks concurrently, improving its performance and responsiveness. However, MT also introduces some complexities, such as thread synchronization and resource sharing, which must be carefully managed to avoid issues such as race conditions and deadlocks. Why am I seeing no to little performance gain? There are several reasons that could account for this. One of the most common reasons for lower-than-expected performance gains is being GPU limited. Whereas MT can greatly improve CPU efficiency and resulting performance, most of the graphical rendering elements are still reliant on the graphics card. To check this, play a mission and press Right Control + Pause at the same time to display your performance Frame Per Second (FPS) and rendering information. If it indicated GPU BOUND, your graphics card is holding back the maximum possible frame rate that the CPU can provide. MT is most effective in large missions with many units. In small missions with a limited number of units, CPU calculations are not a gating performance limit. As such, you may not see much of an MT performance gain in small missions. Older CPUs will not benefit as much from MT as more modern CPUs with a greater number of cores/threads. Please be sure that you are using the current Open Beta and that you are using the DCS.exe from the Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\bin-mt\ folder if using the standalone version. Controls HOG PLUG is enabled. Please ensure that that HOT PLUG is disabled from OPTION / CONTROLS tab. You may not have appropriate BIOS setting for your CPU. If you have 32 or less cores, please ensure that HT/SMT is enabled. If you 33 or more cores, please disable this. If you have Vsync enabled in OPTIONS/SYSTM, uncheck the box Are there any known issues that I should be aware of? As an initial test version, yes. NS430 inoperable. Not in 2D neither 3D Sporadic stuttering in 2D and VR Ka-50: IT-23 display is colored. Supercarrier: there is no picture on LSO displays Display issues with a limited set of VR devices Dedicated server doesn't start automatically first time after update, hoster have to launch server manually by clicking on “start” button for mission or server itself in web GUI Motion Blur causes blue/black 'fog' (in single-thread only) Invisible player aircraft sometimes Cockpit tooltips AH-64D Instant action Persian Gulf - animator.dll crash If you notice other problems that you'd like to report, please visit: Multi-Threading Bug Reports (Temp) - ED Forums (dcs.world) Why is MT currently optional? As MT is a complex addition to DCS, we have made it optional for initial public testing. Once fully tested and working well, it will be enabled by default. How long will MT be in preview? It depends on public test results and feedback; we will keep you all informed as things develop. What is the maximum number of threads the game can utilize? About half of P-cores are dedicated for the graphics needs. Currently the rendering pool scales up to 16 threads on P-cores (1 core = 2 threads). The other P-cores are used by the main logic thread, sound engine threads, and the auxiliary thread pool that occupy all available space. E-cores are used only by the resources streaming pool that has no limits (1 core = 1 thread). Will VR and flatscreen have an equal performance improvement? MT is agnostic between a 2D monitor and VR. Both will see the same proportion of improvement. Note that VR is in general more demanding so you will see lower FPS than flatscreen performance given the higher rendering overhead. Will performance be improved for people currently bottlenecked by their GPU? MT may not help with performance if you have a GPU bottleneck. This is because the GPU is responsible for rendering and processing graphics, and it operates independently of the CPU. So MT may not directly improve GPU performance, but it can help to improve overall application performance by offloading non-GPU related tasks to separate CPU threads. Are there any downsides to MT if I have a CPU with few cores (Like an old quad core)? While MT can improve performance on a CPU with multiple cores, it may not provide significant benefits on a CPU with few cores. In fact, it could even lead to decreased performance in some cases. Will the dedicated server also be multithreading? Currently, the dedicated server is ST. MT dedicated server should behave exactly like ST one including performance because the game logic is still running on a single thread. If you have issues with performance or anything else, please make detailed reports for us to review. Will I be able to play on MT servers/large missions that I couldn't before? You should see improvement in larger missions, but mission designers should still consider unit count in any mission they create. Overloading a multiplayer mission with units will result in loss of performance. Will MT and Single Thread (ST) be updated separately or updated at the same time? You can update DCS in the usual way. Can MT and ST clients join the same server? Yes, MT and ST users can play on the same server. Should I enable HT / SMT in my motherboard BIOS? Currently, users with more than 32 threads should disable HT/SMT, but for everyone else we recommend enabling HT/SMT. Can I expect more bugs with MT, and can they be reported the same way or do I need to do separate reports for MT and ST? MT is a very complex addition to DCS, we have done a lot of testing but you may see issues we have missed. If you do, please report them on the forum bugs section. When reporting issues, please make it clear that you are using multithreading by either by adding “MT” to the title or in the topic itself. I have not seen any improvement what can I do? If you are not seeing any improvement in performance, please make a forum post with your dcs.log dxdiag and a track replay example in the performance issues forum section. How can I launch VR in MT? Same way you do now but using the bin-mt/ dcs.exe with the added launch parameters. ( example "C:\DCS\bin-mt\DCS.exe" --force_enable_VR ) Steam users will have a MT VR option in the launch pop up. Or try starting in 2D and enabling VR in the DCS VR tab, then restarting DCS. Experiencing a crash on first launch of MT DCS? If anyone has an early crash when starting MT DCS and sees almost empty dcs.log file with/without the stack, it would be great to get additional CPU information from such user. 1. add mt.lua to Saved Games\DCS\Config\ mt.lua 2. launch DCS 3. provide Saved Games\DCS\Logs\dcs.log attached to forum post 4. remove mt.lua