Leaderboard

Thanks! New asset in the works... Tor M2K.

A better solution would be to release sniper first. As the version of the aircraft we have, 07 USAF/ANG viper uses sniper pretty much exclusively. Then go back and correct the legacy pod.

Some Roadmap updated: AH-64D F-16C F/A-18C

Its been said that its a matter of when not if. We are waiting for our Terrain SDK to mature enough to do it properly and to the best ability. We are not going to announce it until its happening for obvious reasons. I cant imagine DCS World to never dip its toes in that region though for sure.

This is only about the Viper, the reasoning was the information we have and the references we used, some of which ended up being about the LANTIRN. The reason why we won't keep the LITENING is now that our data was for the LANTIRN we do not have enough info to say the LITENING is modelled correctly. This will not affect other modules as those would have the needed information for those Aircraft/systems. The Sniper is still planned as well.

OP updated.

Dear AH-64D virtual pilots, Although the DCS: AH-64D was released with a rich set of features, there are certainly important features that will still be provided during the Early Access period. To help understand what is still planned and the status of each, we’ve created a roadmap to ensure clarity. As with other roadmaps, we will color-code items based on their status: Green – delivered. Blue – in development. Gray – to be developed. Our roadmap features are as follows: Auxiliary Fuel Tank / Gun Ammunition Option AGM-114L Radar-Guided Hellfire Laser Spot Tracker (LST) Improved Flight Model and Stability and Control Augmentation System (SCAS) Improvements (continuing improvements) Datalink Laser Warning Receiver FARM Reports BDA/SHOT Reports Fire Control Radar (FCR). GTM first being developed. AI Damage Model Improvements Priority and No Fire Zone Data Transfer LINK Mode ZOOM C-Scope FCR RMAP Mode FCR Air-to-Air Mode FCR Multicrew Synch TPM FCR Mode After Early Access Continued Flight Model and Flight Control System Tuning Campaign Data Transfer Cartridge Anti-Ice System Radar Frequency Interferometer (RFI) Radar Jammer Selectable Pilot Patches Automatic Pedal-Input Assist Option Kind regards, Wags

In the meantime, the mutant of the DCS F-18 is diabolically laughing

Holy batman necro thread! And here I thought there was a mini update on the EF. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. Naughty boy @Tirola01

I‘d like to see it added additionally, and then removed when the Sniper pod is available, so we don’t miss out on the LSS function we got to use for the last years. Not to speak of the useful TV mode as FLIR currently is rather unsatisfying or leaves some things to desire.

What I don't understand is... We have the same pod on the A-10. Which is considered realistic. And now we will get LANTIRN from 1987 and get the sniper pod quite a large time later after early access, left with the current IR implementation but without TV mode? Because there is no data to model the pod that has been on the A-10 for years? Please... I am not against it, but don't leave us with a 30 year old pod for the time being.

I, and I know I speak for many others, rather have options to create the experience I am looking for instead of being told "this is the new product now, deal with it". It would not hurt anyone to have both options available until Sniper is available. Have realism where you want it and have compromise where you need it, all up to the user.

no, LANTIRN does not have TV mode. while im not opposed to have LANTIRN modelled correctly and therefore losing the TV mode, in the current state of the FLIR where static map structures etc are significantly brighter than a running vehicle on the FLIR, TV mode is the only one that is actually useful for finding stuff. Losing that before the FLIR is properly done on ground vehicles and objects (or the SNIPER pod is available as alternative) will not do the module any favors.

Wouldn't it make more sense to finish the litening with proper implementation then add lantirn and give the choice ? A lot of peeps did actually buy the 16 with the litening pod on the sales page seems a bit misleading to now suddenly take it away after 3 years for something with less capability and cause a new drama about nerfs and ED bad arguments.

That, but the model will change and some items from functionality, such as LSS and TV will be removed, but other things will be added which I cannot go into until closer to completion (or Wags video on it).

Уважаемые разработчики, мы ценим Ваш самоотверженный труд и благодарны Вам за симулятор в том шикарном виде, в котором он существует сейчас! Тем не менее, хотелось бы обратить Ваше внимание на скудное оснащение авиабаз наземной техникой, а ведь она является их неотъемлемой частью. Её номенклатура достаточно широка, и кое-что уже появилось в игре в виде современных 3D моделей, например АА-7 и АТЗ-5. Но, по какой-то причине, так и не вышел в свет самый массовый и востребованный юнит АПА-5Д, скриншоты которого были показаны летом 2019 года: Так же, как и не появилась до сих пор цистерна ТЗ-22, хотя тягач КрАЗ-258 создан. Список желаемых юнитов можно продолжать до бесконечности, но самые основные, такие как АПА-5Д, АКЗС, УГЗС, УМП, АКПМ, УПГ, генераторы АЭМГ и аэродромные кондиционеры просто обязаны присутствовать в перечне наземной техники. Так же не стоит забывать про достаточно широкий спектр аэродромных пожарных автомобилей и топливозаправщиков. Это пост - консолидированная позиция многих пользователей DCS Надеемся, наши мольбы будут Вами услышаны. Спасибо!

(Wrong forum, but I don't know where else I should put it in.) Oh, and sorry for the damned wall of text instead of screenshots - I don't have access to DCS here, so can't take screenshots. Good day, folks! I've been away for a while, so if this has been announced loud already - sorry for messing up the forums with my post. If not - just a heads up for people who used to create a myriad of their own "else" commands missing in the original Lua files (default.lua etc. for control bindings). @Munkwolf @LeCuvier and many other people (myself included). In one of the recent updates I incidentally noticed that ED implemented "OFF" commands for buttons. This patent is known from some other sims (or at least one I can think of), but hasn't been a thing in DCS so far. It's grand! For a test go bind whatever joystick button to some control in the cockpit, say "Master Arm" in your favourite jet. ("Master Arm" will be my example throughout this post.) Now, open the drop down list which now reads "JOY_BTN10" (or whatever button you have bound, maybe it's "JOY_BTN1") and look carefully at the list of available buttons - for each button on the list you now get two entries: JOY_BTN10 (this one's obvious, nothing new here) JOY_BTN10_OFF (new feature!) Now you can abandon your "else" commands, such as "Master Arm ON else OFF", "Flaps UP else MVR", "Gear UP else DOWN" (etc.), which can often be found in "Special for joystick" category, at least if it's an ED module. Sometimes they have different names, because module authors have problems with consistency, sometimes such "else" command may be called like "Master Arm ON<>OFF", sometimes "Master Arm ON/OFF", you never know, but these are the type of commands tailored specifically for your physical LATCHING toggle switches of ON-OFF type, or 3-way latching switches of type ON-OFF-ON. All latching toogle switches on TM Warthog Throttle are of this type (either 2-way or 3-way). These "else" commands work like this: "As long as button X is held, the control in the cockpit is ON, otherwise it goes OFF". Mind you, they're NOT to be used with latching toggle switches of ON-ON (2-way) type or ON-ON-ON (3-way) type - these in turn need "stateful" commands, commands for separate positions, for example "Master Arm ON" and "Master Arm OFF". Such ON-ON switches can be found, for example, on Honeycomb Bravo Throttle Quadrant - those seven black rocker switches above the annunciator panel. Why "_OFF" bindings are better? They work all the time, unlike "else" commands! I don't know how to describe it well, but LeCuvier came up with the notion of "waking up the switches" - "else" commands sometimes make your latching toggle switches "go to sleep" and require you to then "wake them up". One scenario when this happens - at least on my PC - is this: 1. Let's say there's an "else" command for "Master arm ON else OFF". Bind it to a latching toggle switch, for example "EAC ARM/OFF" on your TM Warthog Throttle base. Now flick the switch up/forward into "ON" ("ARM") position. The toggle switch is now reported to Windows as in "ON" state. If you check the Windows Joystick window, the one with axes current positions and those round "red lamps" indicating button on/off states, with button numbers on them - your button must be now "illuminated" (red lamp must be on). 2. Jump out of the cockpit with F2. 3. Jump back in with F1. 4. Now flick the toggle switch down/aft into "OFF". The toggle switch must be reported to Windows in the OFF state ("red lamp" off). Congratulations - your Master Arm in the cockpit didn't flick! The switch "went to sleep" or in other words, DCS didn't report state change from "ON" to "OFF". Sometimes it just doesn't do it (it may be due to some design decision which I don't understand, but it may be some kind of a bug). What you have to do in order to "wake the switch up" is to flick it up again into the "ON" position (even though it's not what you want), DCS always reports the state change from "OFF" to "ON" properly, and now flick the switch back down into "OFF". Not very nice, especially when you have 10 or 20 such latching toggle switches in your hardware and all of them tend to "go to sleep" together. Unfortunately I've noticed that on my PC my switches sometimes go to sleep also when I'm in the cockpit, without jumping out of it, I don't know exactly when and why it happens. For this reason I was a bit grumpy about those "else" commands. Nothing wrong with them per se, but "going to sleep" is not something you may ever learn to like. With "_OFF" bindings, your toggle switches NEVER go to sleep! I'm in the process of re-binding whatever I've had from "else" commands to "_OFF" commands. Of course there must be "stateful" "ON" and "OFF" commands in the control assignments list for it to work. In most cases such commands are already there. So, following the "Master Arm ON else OFF" and "JOY_BTN10" example, I used to have it bound to: "Master Arm ON else OFF": JOY_BTN10 I've rebound it to: "Master Arm ON" JOY_BTN10 "Master Arm OFF" JOY_BTN10_OFF Another example - flaps UP/MID/DOWN (3 positions), let's say I have a 3-way latching toggle switch ON-OFF-ON and it's reported to Windows as JOY_BTN12 and JOY_BTN13. You probably had it bound to 2 "else" commands like this: "Flaps UP else MID": JOY_BTN12 "Flaps DOWN else MID": JOY_BTN13 Now you can rebind it like this (if there are "stateful" commands prepared in the module): "Flaps UP": JOY_BTN12 "Flaps DOWN": JOY_BTN13 "Flaps MID": JOY_BTN12_OFF; JOY_BTN13_OFF Yes, you need to have two bindings for the middle position, because if your switch was in the "Flaps UP" and you flicked it to middle position, JOY_BTN12_OFF will be reported, while if you had flaps in "DOWN" position and flick it to middle, JOY_BTN13_OFF will be reported. Bear that in mind. No more "asleep" controls! Thanks, ED! To the best of my (limited) knowledge, there wasn't even an anouncement in the DCS changelog about it and it's such an awesome feature! I'm in the middle of the process of removing my own "else" commands, I've had a zillion of them thrown in controls Lua files for so many modules.

Info on this is coming either today or tomorrow...

Agreed. Then again, and not not put too fine a point on this: DCS is a game that squarely centers around destruction. Trying to exempt some civilian or religious objects seems a bit arbitrary if not hypocritical to me. I know and understand why it's done; yet I wonder: A long time ago, there was a game called 'Wolfenstein 3D'. People complained about the fact that in the course of this game, the player occasionally needed to shoot and kill dogs. These people argued that this aspect was needlessly cruel and an example for needlessly gratuitous violence. They completely overlooked the fact that in the game, the player regularly shot and killed humans. That, it seemed, posed no problem to them. Unreflected, self-important hypocrites. IMHO, the problem here are neither ED nor OnReTech. They are merely trying to avoid being implicated by the headlines when bigoted politicians and 'concerned citizens' feign outrage in order to garner a few votes or clicks. I feel that it should be OK (even if not a good look) if this kind of stuff was permitted in games, so some people could work out their issues if they really wanted to. As for the real world, I wish it wouldn't happen at all, fully knowing that unfortunately, and senselessly, it regularly does. But let's leave these darker waters and instead focus on the bright side: soon we'll be able to fly on a map that - from the looks of it - seems to be a serious contender for the top slot in terms of beauty and versatility (which IMHO is currently held by 'Syria').

Meh. Looks like an airport to me. Seems an odd thing (color of concrete) to to use as a make or break decision on purchasing a map considering the the overall map. But, your call, it’s your money. Great looking map, going to be fun to fly and the mission creation will be excellent.

I'm updating the Tarantul mod now so once I finish it you will be able to see the missile inside the launchers. I've also updated the missiles as well. Not sure if we will be updating the Hull numbers on the Admiral but anyone is more than welcome to update to 454 as well.

Hi all, I can only apologies for the delay, the teams are very busy constantly. I have raised the issue with the team responsible and they will be making some time for the gun radar issue soon. thank you for your patience.

Its always the same with the Viper and ED. Always a downgrade for the viper. No other airplane gets any realistic update. But the Viper gets it all. The Frankenstein Hornet HARM TOO (find emitters which are emitting for the first time in a millisecond with exact range and location) or MAV Alignment was mentioned so often but no one cares. If there are no data for the Hornet, well thats OK. If there are some wrong data for the viper, go fix it back to the <profanity>ty 1980 pod. Well nothing new so far, got used to...

Nowhere to be seen. The DCS core MLRS fires rockets, my HIMARS fires missiles (in DCS terms).

This sounds like a rare problem, which I've encountered twice in about a decade. Unzip the mission file, or track file, and open the 'mission' file. It's a lua file, and at the end it would normally say ["failures"] = { }, -- end of ["failures"] I'm gonna guess this has been filled with lots of random failures. This then affects a multiplayer mission.

And I think it's also good if that carries over to games!

This is fixed internally. Wait for next update.

Понятно. Крайние настройки ИК текстур техники еще не попали в ОБ. Ждите.

@1130Thought of this afterwards but was working & didn't have time to post- If you really want to familiarize yourself, start gettingnull to know the cockpit layout. Here's two images to get you started: nullthey'renull meant to be one fold-out, so use photoshop ro something to crop them into place!

Not even a PC-9 but a PC-21, so a bit far fetch, but better than nothing (I don't think a PC-21 will come any sooner, nor later for the purpose , than this one) but still nice good looking skin, it would be nice to have, close enough I guess,

!?!?!? This sentence denies the fundamental principles on which our whole universe is build on - the physical laws. I spend 30 years in the industry as a development engineer and I never stumbled over a single piece of technology in which a gain of capabilities could be achieved without any trade offs. There is no such thing as a win-win situation in technical systems. The simple rule for every piece of technology in the The Real World is: The sum of all inconveniences in a technical system always remains constant. The only freedom you have is to decide which kind of inconvenience you are willing to live with. Let me therefore correct your sentence for you: It's not like in The Real World where there is always a sacrifice of one thing for the gain of another; more often than not in games there is a gain of capabilities for no real loss. Your welcome!

You seem to only read what is convenient for you to keep your naggin. This is in the road map: "It is also important to remember that all features of our Viper are in regard to a United States F-16CM Block 50, roughly M4.2+, operated in the 2007-time frame." They found out that the info for the pod they had was indeed for the LANTRIN and not Litening pod, so now they are correcting that misunderstanding, are they doing something wrong here?

No, because you can use fewer squadrons overall. No, just physics. F-15Es are different in where the CG/CL lies, the nose force arm is much larger (consider it's a much heavier nose, check accident reports for F-15Cs involving departure under high AoA caused by deformations of the nose cone - there's at least one that's public), different airflow because of the CFTs etc.

Есть в наличии РУДы. Прошли оптимизацию по уменьшению веса, стали легче соответственно дешевле. На внешний вид и надежность и прочность это не повлияло. Все оси на рычагах теперь имеют бесконтактные датчики TLE. Внутри ручки для поршней, так же ось на датчике TLE. Новая цена 14 000 р. + доставка.

Was the original implementation as it is now pure science fiction? Than it should never have been there with the sniper pod being the primary target for development...

I should imagine for most multi-role operators then its a question of simple economics. As has already been said, operating multiple types can bring additional expense in a few areas (training for air & ground crews, parts inventory, integration etc) so if one type can do both jobs to a satisfactory level then great. There's also a decent correlation between the Cold War ending and the greater proliferation of multi-role platforms in a lot of air forces. This would be partly economic with less defence spend knocking around, and i'd also suggest its partly the kind of conflicts they expect to find themselves fighting in (which have been strike-heavy with any question about air superiority being more about the threat from enemy SAMs than opposing fighter jets).

I have a larger planning tool I use on my site, but wanted to try out the down and dirty of AI. Well here the question went and results are in attached zip as well.: (so long as the user makes a couple flights virtually any platform can use the resulting numbers to build a quick fuel calculator) Resulting script: <!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <title>Interpolate and compute fuel consumption</title> </head> <body> <h1>F/A-18C Fuel Calculator</h1> <p>Enter the weight, distance, altitude, and drag:</p> <form> <label for="weight">Weight (lbs):</label> <input type="number" id="weight" name="weight"><br> <label for="distance">Distance (NM):</label> <input type="number" id="distance" name="distance"><br> <label for="altitude">Altitude (ft):</label> <input type="number" id="altitude" name="altitude"><br> <label for="drag">Drag (units):</label> <input type="number" id="drag" name="drag"><br> <button type="button" onclick="computeFuelConsumption()">Compute fuel consumption</button> </form> <p id="result"></p> <script> // Define the input data const weights = [26000, 52000]; const drags = [0, 315]; const altitudes = [0, 45000]; // Interpolate lb/NM based on weight and altitude function interpolate(x, x0, x1, y0, y1) { const t = (x - x0) / (x1 - x0); const a = y1 - y0; return y0 + a * (t * t * (3 - 2 * t)); } // Compute fuel consumption in lb/NM based on weight, distance, altitude, and drag function fuelConsumption(weight, distance, altitude, drag) { // Limit the weight, distance, altitude, and drag to their respective min/max values weight = Math.max(Math.min(weight, weights[1]), weights[0]); altitude = Math.max(Math.min(altitude, altitudes[1]), altitudes[0]); drag = Math.max(Math.min(drag, drags[1]), drags[0]); // Interpolate lb/NM based on weight and altitude const lbnm = interpolate(weight, weights[0], weights[1], 13, 16) - interpolate(altitude, altitudes[0], altitudes[1], 0, 9); // Interpolate drag value in lb/NM based on drag const drag_lbnm = interpolate(drag, drags[0], drags[1], 0, 13); // Compute fuel consumption in lb const fuel = lbnm + drag_lbnm; return (fuel * distance).toFixed(2); // Round to 2 decimal places } // Define a function to handle the button click function computeFuelConsumption() { // Get the input values const weight = parseInt(document.getElementById("weight").value); const distance = parseInt(document.getElementById("distance").value); const altitude = parseInt(document.getElementById("altitude").value); const drag = parseInt(document.getElementById("drag").value); // Compute the fuel consumption const fuel = fuelConsumption(weight, distance, altitude, drag); // Set the result text document.getElementById("result").textContent = `Fuel consumption: ${fuel} lb`; } </script> </body> </html> FA-18C Fuel Calculator.zip

For Upuaut Mod https://my.hidrive.com/share/lwer0.o024#$/ For rato65 (link for mod included) https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3314170/ BUT !!! you have to merge these three mod to use them together (I made it with Eight Ball help, think I can give link in PM)

Ну вот.Хорошо истину нашли,а то мусолим-мусолим)))

Cant wait to not have TV imagery anymore, especially with how FLIR currently is. Good luck finding stuff I hope both pods will be available in the future as the block 50 viper from the air national guard did get Lightening II pods as of 1999 https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104571/litening-advance-targeting/

can you start your own thread on the forum? can you handle it?

Neues vom FA-18 Simpit Eine kleine 3018 pro CNC Gravier-/Fräse hat heute nach einem kurzen Testlauf die erste Blende hergestellt.

It takes the exhaust from the HMD and uses it to power a turbine, which injects compressed air into the headset for a more powerful detonation per frame

No worries man, I make typos like a broken typewriter with the keys flubbed around. HUDs won't come to any F-4 variants intended to be added, since US variants generally do not have Heads-up displays. They really skimped out. Fortunately, the cockpits should be relatively easy to navigate. I would personally like a later F-4E upgrade- preferably the Greek or Israeli ones- but if that doesn't come about, then I don't really mind. The F-4E is what I personally think is the coolest Phantom, so I certainly don't have any quarrel or need to wait years for another carrier-based variant. Though I do agree they might be cool with VTAS and PD, there's something about the USAF ones that just gets me. Well, that and the many hours of Strike Fighters 2. Call me biased, I probably am.

I have to agree. This much needed feature was introduced but then left half-done. Devs need to finish it for once.

I have added a TRK file and several screen shots. I have a column of tanks, apcs and trucks. The close up of the truck has clearly visible tryes irrespective of hot or cold start. The close up of the T-90 is virtually invisible irrespective of hot or colt start. With the wider view you can see 6 vehicles in TV mode but only 3 in FLIR. Having the hot start fixed in the next patch is going to be a big improvement.....but there is still the issue of some models. As I said a T-90 is almost invisilbe when cold....which is fair enough. Ural 375 has hot wheels.....whereas a Zil135 seems to show white hot instead of black hot. Then we have dust trails clearly visible....but only on wheeled vehicles and not tracked vehicles After 5 minutes running most tanks can barely be seen with just a little heat from the engine deck (far harder to see than a dust trail)....hot exhaust should sufely be immediately visible and more so than a dust trail. Even after 10 minutes it's hard to see the T-90 but it's becoming visible. These are all from the Harrier as it's got the clearest display but it's the same in the viper etc. I understand the ambition...but we need to have consistency. This should never have been rushed out for the Apache. I love DCS but this seems to sum up EDs decision making which seems to prioritise things which can be put on a You Tube video for the latest module and hell to what's actually good for the game and the old model is actually better then the current half implemented & inconsistent system. There appears to be no common sense applied. Tank engine firing up obviously gives out heat. A vehicle driving at 10mph isn't going to kick up dust visible from further away than the tank exhaust. Accuracy and realism is great...but consistency is more important. FLIR test.trk

I've also been playing a lot of multiplayer, but now I'm back to SP, with some occasionally mp missions. MP is not for everyone. My life with kids to be taken care of does not allow for multiplayer. When I play DCS I must be able to pause the game.

Yes, we can make icons, I will show an example of how we did it for ports