Leaderboard

I wasn't planning on sharing this as it's too big but there were some requests so here it is. Please read all instructions and notes. Many of DCS textures are needlessly large. Wasting VRAM and drive space. This mod reduces those textures at no reduction in quality. Benefits of this would be: Reduced DCS install size. (By about 26GB with all optimization) Reduced loading time. Reduced chance of running out of VRAM. Possible performance benefit Performance benefit will depend on your graphic card and mission. It will save more VRAM on heavier mission. Average VRAM reduction I've experienced is between 1GB to 3GB. With 1 - 4 FPS gain on my 16GB VRAM. May benefit more in VR. Or you may not see any FPS gain if you already have enough VRAM. YMMV. INSTALL with Mod Manager (Recommended): Place the folder into your Mod Manager Mods repository. (Keep correct folder structure per your Mod Manager) INSTALL without Mod Manager (Not recommended): Copy and overwrite files in DCS main install directory. Backup your files. NOTES: This is texture mod. It will not pass "Pure Texture" IC check. I only optimized cockpits for modules that I own. If you want to optimize modules I don't have or optimize more aggressively, I posted simple instruction HERE In order to maximize the drive space of your DCS install drive, I highly recommend putting your Mod Manager repository on different drive than your DCS install drive. For OvGME, make sure to also set "Custom configuration backup folder" to the slower drive. DOWNLOADS: These are Google Drive links because files are too large. You will get virus warnings. You can check for virus after download. Links are folders you can BROWSE. You should download the entire folder the first time but after that, browse and only download files that are updated. Updated files will be listed at the bottom of this post or you can sort by Date Modified. My Google Drive has bandwidth limit. Please don't download the entire folder each update. Optimized Core (10GB) Optimized Liveries (7.2GB) COCKPITS: Optimized A10C-II (412MB) Updated 4-13-2023 Optimized F-16C (150MB) Optimized FA-18C (133MB) Updated 10-26-2023 Optimized Ka-50-3 (200MB) Optimized AH-64D (478MB by lefuneste01) Optimized Mi-24P (81MB by lefuneste01) Updated 5-03-2023 UPDATED: 12-22-2023 CoreMods/aircraft/FA-18C/Textures/FA-18C.zip CoreMods/aircraft/AH-64D/Textures/AH-64D.zip CoreMods/tech/TechWeaponPack/Textures/rapier_fsa_launcher_radar.zip CoreMods/tech/TechWeaponPack/Textures/rapier_fsa_missile.zip CoreMods/tech/TechWeaponPack/Textures/rapier_fsa_optical_tracker_unit.zip CoreMods/tech/TechWeaponPack/Textures/rapier_fsa_selector_engagement_zone_box.zip Bazar/World/textures/b-13l.zip

Getting ready for release...

Yep, that's what I usually do. But this one is different, since one of the main features of the Pantsir is its capability to fire while moving. So I can't rely on the red and green state, because that would make the jacks deploy while driving when engaging a target. So for the Pantsir I had to make them static. So, for those who want them statically positioned in a mission, just enable them in the ME according to the picture below.

I'm almost done with the new MIM-104 Patriot release. One of the changes is a more correct front for the AN/MPQ-65A.

MIM-104 Patriot SAM 1.1.0 released! Changelog Version 1.1.0 Added minimum weapon range indicator in ME and F10 map Fixed the PAC-2 GEM/T anti ballistic missile performance Fixed the PAC-3 MSE anti ballistic missile performance Fixed the PAC-3 MSE hit-to-kill accuracy in general Fixed the alarm state interval for each MIM-104 asset Fixed AN/MPQ-65A radar emission azimuth Fixed AN/MPQ-65 and AN/MPQ-65A max altitude Changed the front of the AN/MPQ-65A radar surface Changed AN/MPQ-65A simultaneous targets to 16 Changed AN/MPQ-65A radar range to 140 nm

RWR and HARM IDs 1.0.0 released! Changelog Version 1.0.0 Release version On my site you will now find a tab called RDR which will have the latest version of my RWR and HARM ID package. These install either with OvGME or manually into the program folder, just check the folder structure in the package. There are two files in it, the first one is the RWR definitions for my assets and the second one is the HARM IDs. I've tried the HARM IDs by manually adding the codes in the F-16 and it works. But I'm no Viper/Hornet pro, so you'll have to try it out. On my site you will also find an overview of all the codes per asset. The RWR definitions does not include the ones Nighthawk have added, it's only core game plus my assets. I have to think of a way to maintain this efficiently.

Hi all, please do not post videos from current events here, keep it mod related. thank you

Patience folks... there should be some good news coming in the next couple of weeks.

Preview of Gream Reapers Normandy 2.0

Actually, the chances are pretty high.

Hello, There are currently several problems with Aim-9P and P-5 in DCS, from FM (Gs) to its flare rejection (P5) i would like to point at its CCM coeficient in LUA of P5. It sits at 1.0 which might be ok or might not, thats not the problem. Problem is, its same as P (which as far as i understand is either P-2 or P-3 in DCS - tho lacking smokeless engine). But P5 introduced IRCCM circuit as first P model. Wouldnt it be in place to modify its CCM somewhere around 9M to achieve its IRCCM? As of now. P and P5 share same flare resist which is wrong. Or simply rename it to P-4 (first all aspect P model without IRCCM) Additionally, Both Ps currently sits at 16G overload. Considering what they are based on - improved export variant of 9J or simply renamed J-1 in case of P (9J-2+ eventually used SR116 engine too). They should share its flight characteristics in that department. Which would be 22G overload instead of 16Gs. Considering, these missiles might end up on upcoming F-15E and F-4E module (P mainly in F-4s case), they deserve some necessary care. Good solution to all, would be bumping G load to 22, renaming current P-5 to P-4, P to P-2 or 3 and giving it its smokeless engine and possibly "reintroduce" P-5 with lowered CCM coeficient to "simulate" IRCCM circuits built into it. null

Probably not in the immediate future. I have a lot of other assets that needs attention and the T-64BV works fine, except the conflict with an other mod. Yes and no. For HARM IDs you need my package since Nightstorm's package only contains the RWR. For RWR you can use Nightstorm's package, but it won't be as updated as mine in regards to my assets (by obvious reasons). For example the Nightstorm's current version are missing the Tor SHORADs. I release new assets rather often, that's why I'm keeping my own RWR list also. And you can of course combine the two lists yourself.

The award of the most responsive developer goes to ---- The @OnReTech I would like to this kind of community engagement and interaction to become golden standard and official requirement for any third party developers.

I'm just finalizing a double asset, the Iskander-M with two 9M723 SRBM and Iskander-K with four 9M729 LACM.

This issue will be fixed in the new version of OpenXR Tools for WMR, and there won't be a need to use OpenXR Toolkit for that.

Hello, It seems that there was a bit of a confussion regarding this. We think it probably comes from the most modern helmets muffling the sound more than the older ones. In any case, it will be possible to muffle the sound in the Special Options menu for those who find it too annoying. Hopefully this will be available in the next OB update.

Made some tweaks this afternoon. Adjusted loft of AIM-120C-7, AIM-120D and AIM-120D-2 to 1.5 from 3.0 (Stock was 4.5). This seems to have also helped with missiles impacting your own aircraft as stated above. Increased range of AIM-120D-2 to 130nm maximum. Added AIM-120D-3. Based on information from the launch last summer, no changes to propulsion but battery life increased by 30 seconds. Maximum range 160nm. (This is the range limit of the RADAR, so really no point in it being further.) That is also under absolute IDEAL circumstances. High altitude, high speed, nose hot, fast bandit. My testing was at 40k feet co-altitude with a pair of Tu-22M's closing at Mach 1.6 with my Raptor at Mach 1.8. So, Mach 3.4 closure, RADAR STT lock at 160nm, flight time of the AIM-120D-3 was 150 seconds before impact. Missiles also tested in TWS mode. Missiles lofted to nearly 90k feet. Increased range of AIM-260A to the same 160nm. Same results except the flight time was 165 seconds before impact and missiles lofted to about 60k feet. Both Single Player and external weapons add on updated in first post.

Do you walk into a liquor store and complain they don't sell prime rib, how the National Cattlemen's Beef Association are running a scam through the sale of brisket because it's a slow process to cook properly and some people just don't have time for that- and that consumers need to demand more from their butchers than market rate pricing? nVidia and AMD both have websites to take your complaints on their products, as well as your suggestions on what you think they should be doing. I'm sure they'd enjoy hearing your expertise on the subject.

I’m the opposite. I love the authenticity of the worn cockpit. You know what the button does by its shape/colour/position, any factory text wore off years ago, and the Dymo label stuck next to it by maintenance is now barely readable. I spent some time flying a brand new aircraft, I was literally like the 6th person in the cockpit. It was like a new BMW fresh out of the showroom. Within 6 months it was a complete mess; Knobs and dials had been bent and broken by pilots clumsily climbing in and out, canopy was scratched from items/headgear placed in places they shouldn’t be, unidentifiable stains on the switches, the floor, the seats. Come to think about it, Pilots are disgusting . This is just how planes are (at least in my experience).

Preview of Normandy 2

I agree, it's under-appreciated, this hmd has brought back the thrill of virtual reality that I had lost with the G2.

At long range that's actually not that unrealistic. The PAC-2 is a TVM missile which depends on the STR keeping the lock on the target. When locked, the Tu-160 will enable it's ECM and break the lock, whereas the missile will self destruct. The Patriot system will then have to wait until the Tu-160 is in range to burn through its ECM system. You can always test this by setting the Tu-160 to have the ECM turned off always.

No one from DCS joined me , but had a great dogfight null

I have done several performance tests of my newest hardware and compared them with each other. I have used DCS World 2.8.3.38090 Open Beta with Single Thread ST and Multiple Threads MT with an Instant Mission: AH-64D, map "Marianas" - Battle for Saipan: Dawn Invasion" After starting the mission, I have pressed OK, then [Right-STRG + Break/Pause] for two times (for displaying the frame rate) and then I have pressed the space bar. Directly after that I have checked the frame rate. I know that my graphic settings are very hard.....: null All CPUs as well as GPUs are slightly overclocked, except the CPU Intel I5-13500. Here are the results, including the fps / framerates in DCS World with ST and MT: Here as a table: 4K performance comparison between four of my computers Type Description CPU GPU RAM DCS World Battle for Saipan – Dawn Invasion Time Spy Time Spy Extreme Port Royal ST MT Total Graphics Score CPU Score PC Self build Intel i7-12700KF (12 Cores, 25MB Cache) RTX 4090 24GB GDDR6X 64 DDR5-6000 84 98 („GPU-Bound“) 31977 37570 17394 16227 27128 PC Self build Intel i5-13500 (14 Cores, 24 MB Cache) RTX 3080 LHR 10GB GDDR6 32 DDR5-4800 48 58 („GPU-Bound“) 17325 17624 15810 8406 11529 PC Self build Intel i7-2600k @ 4.5 Ghz (4 Cores, 8MB Cache) RTX 2080 Ti 11GB GDDR6 16 DDR3-1600 21 38 (fast changes between „CPU-“ and „GPU-bound“) 9996 14096 3775 4506 8941 Notebook Alienware 17 R5 Intel i7-8750H (6 Cores, 8MB Cache, up to 3.9GHz with Turbo Boost) GTX 1070 OC 8GB GDDR5 32 DDR4-2666 6 7 („GPU-Bound“) 4404 4459 4118 1815 1030

I have my own Template, create Sensors new Normals, more Details etc. It is in PDN

Posted here.

It's the two states that every DCS unit can be in. Default is alarm state green, but when an enemy is detected (by radar, visual, datalink etc) it turns to alarm state red. It's the alarm state change that makes the unit turn on radars, flip covers etc. You can force the alarm state per unit in the ME. I always suggest putting SAM systems in alarm state red so that it's correctly deployed and ready to engage. Because all units have a alarm state time set, and for a SAM system you don't want to be deploying hydraulic lifts while cruise missiles are flying over your head. I try to make good use of the two alarm states for every asset I make.

Настоящий, тру ВРщик постоянно что то настраивает, но у настоящего ВРщика нет цели что то настроить, только путь[emoji41]

I know that many people prefer scratches and weathering. But I would like to be able to choose a new cockpit without scratches and scuffs and choose a skin from the factory. They will tell me that I can just choose a custom skin, but in fact it can often be prohibited in multiplayer p.s. and it would be nice to have several variants of green and white skins from developers, not even historical ones. Just to have a suitable skin for all the maps

(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.

Hey guys, For those who have not seen those, I'll be posting recordings of the training missions for the upcoming F-15E Strike Eagle. Enjoy! Using Radios in F-15E Also check the playlist with previous training videos:

No idea, I use Monstertech table mounts.

I hate to say it but you need the Virpil CM3 base only with the drag clutches, you can mount your TM sticks on it without adapters. Adjust the clutches and the stick will stay where you put it.... just like a helo stick. The only thing I do not like about VPC is there is no GUI programming like TARGET, so you need two different software programs (Joy2key, Joystick Gremlin etc) if you want to immulate keystrokes for games limited to 32 dx commands like IL2. I use TARGET SCRIPT for DCS and TARGET GUI for IL2. I do use a BlackHog button box I program with joy2key and run along side TARGET. So you should be able as well.

Reviews are kinda slim, but here is a grab from Paul's Hardware for Msfs2020.

Hi @DreamingInfraviolet I watched your track and must observe several things you need to review. You try to change coordinates with the INS system in NAV mode. It won't be updated like that. If you want to do this, you need to reset the INS system (off, then one of the align modes) inserting the coordinates in the first two minutes of alignment in NORM mode. By design, INS does not know where it is unless you confirm the coordinates. In this case, if you confirm the current ones, you would intentionally have a misalignment. The system will say it's "accurate" because it's assuming your coordinates are correct. Remember our model of the F-16 does not include an integrated GPS system, like the A-10C EGI. This is a separate system that generates a position via an algorithm called a Kalman filter. Long story short, GPS is an aid to this equation. The Fix feature will only correct INS coords drift if GPS is not available. So it's working correctly in your example. I was able to take control of your track and do the correct procedures with success. Hope this helps.

Yes

absolutely true, below sea level is not possible. But bunkers can be made below ground level (let's say you can dig a hole, but water will appear when the ground level reaches sea level)

Bombing airborn helis training?

IIRC weathering will not be something changed with FORGE. Creating a clean cockpit is a huge undertaking.

Normally I delete these and give warning points, it will still get warning points but in what world is this an acceptable way to treat your fellow DCS community members, we are all here for the fun and joy of DCS World, please be kind and treat each other with the respect you would like to be treated with. This goes for everyone here, please post in a mature and constructive manner or take it elsewhere. Thanks.

New necropost world record ¡¡¡

Thanks for the fix on these ships. Great to get the working. I've found that using the ED CH-53 is good for Helicopter placement. It's VERY large so the spots will work for most others. The Felon and Puma liked the Ch-53 spots. With the larger helicopters I think there is no way to avoid the rotor clashing. I'm going to play around with some folded rotors parked on one side with triggers to start after the other side takes off. Best I can come up with. But again excellent work.

That will be one of the last ones.

The model is still not fixed, 2 years and counting. Maybe ask ED for help, they've made the correct model of this radio for MiG-15.

Thats assuming you get the option to buy before they sell out. Good luck to all of us.

Depends on how personally attached you are to the F-15E. I know people who worked on the bird IRL that have developed a personal connection with it. To them it’s not about the act of flying in DCS that interests them, but rather what they are flying. With the E model so close, their drive to fly anything else in DCS has all but gone away. I’ve only worked with transport planes myself, so as far DCS modules go I just fly whatever is fun. And carrier ops are a lot of fun. I’m not on the edge of my seat waiting for the E model or anything, but I am looking forward to its release bringing my buddies back to DCS so I’m not flying alone anymore.

Thank you for the feedback, and not wanting to derail this thread I wont go into a detailed reply, however design decisions like the Spanish TGP on the hornet were taken as it was the most complete public data available. We dont want to make data up, it needs to be as close to real life with public information. I will close this thread as it will just derail, If any one does have any public evidence specific to our F-16C and the tumblers please PM me. thank you

100% agree !

Yes I'd love to see this too although I do believe a central northern India which has Kashmir in the middle, and includes both Pakistani and Chinese borders are included. This would give more range and dynamic for factions and units alike. So many Chinese assets and now modules that are already there plus incoming would have a natural habitat too

I agree. That said - I think it is reasonable for people to offer to pay extra for additional variants/eras of an aircraft - or for the export examples. I'd love to pay for an export Mi-24P with PKT door guns and UPK gunpods... even better if it was an Mi-24V and came with the MBD bomb racks for it.