Leaderboard

Iskander SSM 1.0.0 released! Changelog Version 1.0.0 Release version

RAZBAM's Strike Eagle Just some nice sounds: RDT_20230407_080328.mp4

Project 22350 Admiral Gorshkov Class Frigate 1.4.0 released! Changelog Version 1.4.0 Added minimum weapon range indicator in ME and F10 map Added prefix to asset name Changed 9M100 to reduce accuracy Changed 9M337 to reduce accuracy Changed 9M96M to launch at low altitude targets at closer range Changed 9M96M to reduce accuracy Changed KT-308 countermeasures to reduce accuracy Changed Palash CIWS to burst mode Changed countermeasure type to better emulate naval CM Changed display name Fixed active radar seeker range for 9M100 Fixed active radar seeker range for 9M96M Fixed the 3M14T terrain following performance and max range

Thank you for the kind words.

After the reviews, we made a list of work to be done before EA. We also received feedback from the team that makes multiplayer missions for the Sinai map. We keep working. We continue to work on improvement. But there is not a lot of work, rest assured that this is not a year

Just watched the long Grim Reapers preview of Normandy 2. What a great looking map! Helicopter heaven. I'm gonna need a new video card...

Optimized liveries uploaded. Liveries alone would save about 10GB of drive space. There were some crazy large livery files. I don't do multiplayer so I'm not sure but I'm guessing if players join with these huge liveries on multiplayer server, I can see how it could pile up on VRAM. Especially with memory leak.

There you go Edited the first post so its permanent. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3330251/ Ill try that one tomorrow to have another off-site download link. Default files are usually de-shtonkified but full-shtonks included. Feedback highly welcome. Thanks to everyone involvled! Espescially DB605 and Magic Zach! Now, how do we proceed. I´ll take a small break from this and allow some room for feedback to trickle in. There´s still some JG.´s left to be done. Once i finished my little project, i´ll clean up the template and provide it for you guys to make your own liveries. But for now i have a beer and

Do you like Bees ?

Getting ready for release...

Project 22800 Karakurt Class Corvette 1.4.0 released! Changelog Version 1.4.0 Added KT-308 countermeasures Added minimum weapon range indicator in ME and F10 map Added prefix to asset name Changed Hermes-K to reduce accuracy Changed Pantsir-M CIWS to burst mode Changed display name Fixed the 3M14T terrain following performance and max range

BMP-T Terminator would be great as a next project. I think you should consider it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMPT_Terminator#

ED newsletter, UH-1H update on progress - New Engine Model develop. - Improve Temperature regimens - Mechanics better - improve details of start-up and shutdown procedures.

I don't want to get too far down this rabbit hole. This has become a bit of a toxic discussion as of late, and I'm aware this can contribute to it, but I think its a fair criticism. First and foremost, personally, I like the worn look. I'm in that camp, but I'm also willing to admit that it's not always readable, and some veteran players like yourself might be taking a lot of muscle memory, and previous knowledge for granted. I don't want to get into a cherry-picking argument, but it doesn't take long looking through Chuck's guide, or the HB manual for the F-14A/B to see some buttons that are worn away either entirely or close to. It's fairly common in the RIO cockpit specifically. Maybe it's a little more fresh for me since I am currently in the process of learning the RIO and I'm currently playing on a Reverb G2 (which admittingly has decent resolution, not perfect but I can read what I need to and use context clues, or previous knowledge for the rest) but it can be difficult to locate a button if somebody is using readable labels next to or on the buttons to do it, and since my head is in a headset and not always looking at a separate monitor to cross reference with a guide I can see how reading labels can be important to some users. Some notable examples are: Keep in mind these are high quality images from the manual, and only look worse in VR, or at varying graphical settings. You can zoom in as much as you would like, but you will just not be able to argue that the IR/TV mode button in photo 1, or JAM STROBE from photo 2 are readable. Depending on the quality of your image in game it only gets more difficult to read the different labels along the Pilot/RIO cockpit. Again, this isn't about cherry-picking, but these examples show how difficult it can be to read some labels in the best case scenario. Now, I'm 100% sure you know what all four buttons shown as #12 in photo 1 are, or all eight labeled #8 in photo 2, but you didn't read all of them, and if you did it certainly wasn't in this game, in that cockpit as you were flying. I'm also 100% sure we are not all you, and we don't know as much as you, we might need to read them. Heck, I'm sure no real F-14 crew had this issue, after all they were probably the person that wore the button out, but some of us are not that guy. There is a reason why the F-14 engineers decided to label the buttons after all. It is a legitimate criticism to say that it is not always readable. You can argue that people should just memorize the cockpit from studying manuals first, you can argue that you can figure it out just by pushing it and seeing what it does, you can even argue that it's realistic. I agree with all of those things because that's exactly how I have to do it, but what you cannot argue is that it's always readable. I don't see the harm in offering more readable buttons if the main reason for them being less readable is for realism. I do see some harm in trying to invalidate other's opinions because they would like to be able to read the labels on the buttons though. Form follows function: how you use the space should prioritize over how it looks. Some buttons could be more readable because quite frankly, they are not. It doesn't need to start a war between the community. Not every criticism needs the veteran players coming out of the woodworks to discredit it because they dont have that issue. This isn't a complex conflict with a NATOPS or a game engine, if it's possible to add dynamic bits of tape and string to the ACM for more realism, it's possible to make slightly more readable labels to the buttons that are already there.

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

2S38 SPAAG 1.2.0 released! Changelog Version 1.2.0 Added minimum weapon range indicator in ME and F10 map Added modular damage model Added prefix to asset name Changed LG-HE minimum range Changed LG-HE to reduce accuracy Changed display name Fixed dust and dirt effect position when moving

Thanks! Well, it's only me and myself. So the crew is rather small, but that's how I like it. This means I can work at my own pace. I made my first DCS mod around a year ago. And I'm learning new stuff every day, that's why I keep updating the assets.

Enough now guys, you are getting way off topic. The Channel is a separate map done by a separate development team (us) before it was known that Ugra was going to do Normandy 2. It makes no sense right now until there is some tech to join maps to overlap major areas so Ugra left the Channel Map area off Normandy 2. If you own The Channel Map you get a discount on Normandy 2. Please stick with the discussions of Normandy 2 and Normandy 2 only it has been explained enough why the Channel Map area is not included. Thanks.

Thank You ED. SO HAPPY TO READ THIS.

Very impressive work ! Many thanks Currenhill !

huey can really use a texture refresh similar to the a10/ka50 treatment. its really starting to show its age

Wow, amazing, DO NOT STOP

if we can't make surface mesh below 0, then our dead sea is at 0, you're right. But the height maps in this place are honest, as soon as the ability to do below 0 is added, everything will fall to honest heights (we have done everything for this), all that remains is to build module again. agree

Very good job , as always

Die BW will auf böses Imperium tun? Da haben wir doch schon historische Vorlagen in Sachen Kostüme Fertig mit Logo, Markenklamotten von Hugo Boss, usw. Musste da schon meine Augen verdrehen, als davon die Tage gehört hab. Und das als Star Wars Fan.

Victory205 is doing well, thank you for asking. As for why he posts less on forums these days is not my place to answer. My guess is simply that he's enjoying his life with family and friends, as he well deserves.

То же что и все истребительные 23, двойных пилонов для 250 бомб нельзя. Из интересного обещают правильно реализовать Х-23 без аркадных захватов точки или юнита, и зажигательные бомбы.

And given the time it would take to create the 6-15 aircraft needed for BoB, it would be much faster to expand the channel map eastward into the low countries.

This is general to development, not about OnReTech in particular. There are many shades of grey to this topic so I'll keep it "simple". It depends on how much time it takes out of development. If this is anything like programming where the best productivity (in my and many others experience) is in a quiet place without distractions. Social media is the king of distractions. If we work on something unknown or hard (for us) then once distracted it can take some time for us to "get back into it" and that can easily lead to hours of "lost" time per day and that quickly adds up. Especially if you keep thinking about the interactions afterwards. If we are just placing objects based on a photo then it probably isn't an issue during those times, I'm talking about "working stuff out". Lets put it another way. A dev always loses productivity time if they have to interact with social media unless they do it after hours or they are employed to do it. There is a line for dev to follow, productivity vs chat. Some devs mainly want to get the project out so they can start making money to eat and pay bills, others love the customer interaction and include that as part of their payoff. I won't criticize the former because the later is more visible to us. Both are working hard to get the product to us.

I didn't want to toot my own horn but yeah my clean cockpit mod is going smoothly. A couple more panels and then I have the massive undertaking of going over the minutia of each panel.

G modeling is not fine. Watch any of the former F-16 pilots on YouTube talk about 9G in dogfights and how that is a defining advantage of the Viper against other planes. Anything over 7-7.5G for more than 5 seconds and you black out in DCS. Hasard Lee just put out a short the other day talking about pulling 9G and having some burst blood vessels in his arm from doing it. He didn't experience GLOC. Also, C.W. Lemoine talks about how the Viper in DCS doesn't have the acceleration during 4+ G maneuvering that the real Viper has. IIRC he mentioned accelerating all the way up to 7G with full blower. Go over 4G in a horizontal turn in the DCS Viper and you're definitely losing energy, not accelerating.

Preview of Normandy 2

Absolutely unbelivable how loyal certain people are to which version of the falcon we have in DCS! No the MLU isn't the Block 50, but the world is certainly more than the us national air guard... WHO CARES!!!

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

I was attempting to set a fixed ToT for a waypoint for a Client/Player slot jet. I realized that the TOS values were off if the user slots in after the mission has started. I would expect the ToT to be fixed no matter when the pilot slots into the jet. This is especially problematic in multiplayer (where someone might slot in after the server is un-paused), but reproducible in single player. Reproduction Steps: 1. Add a waypoint with an ETA and "FIx Time" enabled 2. Slot in at mission launch and observe the STPT page for the steerpoint 3. Un-slot and let the server tick for a few seconds 4. Re-slot in the same jet (or another), and observe that the TOS value for the STPT is incorrect. Expected Behavior: The TOS value should be consistent with the Fix Time set in the Mission Editor. Actual Behavior: The amount of time the mission has been running will be added to the TOS. For example, if you re-slot at mission start + 17 seconds, your TOS value will be increased by 17 seconds. I attempted to reproduce this in the Hornet, but it doesn't seem to take any "Fix Time" values for waypoints. Not sure if that is a bug or just hasn't been implemented yet. Workaround for this is to have everyone slot with the mission paused. viper_tot.trk tot_test.miz

You are on a roll! I mean, out of curiosity, how did you and your crew learn to make these mods and assets - 3d modeling, programming, coding, etc? And how long did it take you to hone your craft?

You are brilliant. Thank you for all the work that you do for the DCS Community.

Yeah, might be the pivot point that's off. But I never claim my models to be a 1:1 replica of the real deal. Most dimensions gathered via OSINT are speculations. And newer the systems, the fewer the reference pictures. So I try to achieve a good enough representation. Otherwise the release schedule would look very different, haha. In this case, I think I can live with it. Nope, that's the way to do it. And it requires math on a different level than I can muster. And the 9M723 is considered a semi-ballistic missile.

Watching the grim reapers video. I was surprised by the level of detail in the "low detail" area except for missing dover Castle and airfields it looks like the rest of the map.

That's not the point it takes 2-3 years to make a plane module and 2-3 to make a map. So to make Hurricane, Spitfire, Stuka, Me109E, Me110, (plus at least 5 more AI only planes)(the absolute minimum for BOB), that's 10 years of work vs 1 map which is 2-3 years of work. Now if ED had the resources to either make 5 teams(or hire 3rd party developer) to make 5 WW2 planes at the same time, so in 2-3 years we'd have 5 planes ready for Bob, that would be one thing, but I don't think ED has the resources, and it doesn't match the current way they do business. So yes it would be still be better to spend 2-3 years on expanding Channel eastward vs waiting 10 years for some early war planes to trickle in.

For me it's not the release date what makes me disappointed about Razbam/ED. It's the total lack of any communication what drives me mad. No weekly progress, no rough schedules, ... I should have learned from Star Citizen (with it's squadron 42 first playable release in 2014, LOL) not to do any early access any more... Honestly, the moment I spent money we go into a business relationship, and both sides should honor this...

Amazing stuff Currenthill. Thank you so much !

According to a -1 for USAF series F-4E circa 1979, it's an AN/ARC-52. The type description for the intercom, TACAN, UHF radio, ADF and IFF is all given as AN/ASQ-19, which according to this consists of the AN/APA-89, AN/APX-6 and AN/ARC-52. It ranges from 225.00 - 399.95 MHz, in increments of 0.05 MHz; has 18 channels (with the option to use channels, manual input or guard), as well as the facility to program channels from the manual input. There's also an auxiliary receiver with its own 20 presets (that can only be changed on the ground) and volume control (which seems to be used for ADF reception apart from the ADF + G CMD mode, where it's used for communications), as well as a separate guard receiver which monitors 243.00 MHz. For modes: T/R ADF: Communications transmitter and receiver used for communications Guard receiver - disabled AUX receiver - ADF reception AUX guard receiver - disabled T/R + G ADF: Communications transmitter and receiver used for communications Guard receiver - enabled AUX receiver - ADF reception AUX guard receiver - disabled ADF + G CMD: Communications receiver - ADF reception Communications transmitter - communications transmission (interrupting ADF reception) Guard receiver - enabled AUX receiver - communications within AUX receiver's range. AUX guard receiver - disabled. ADF G Communications receiver - ADF reception Communications transmitter - communications transmission (interrupting ADF reception) Guard receiver - disabled AUX receiver - disabled AUX guard receiver - enabled There's also a mode selector switch that determines whether the channel selection is used for transmission/reception, whether the guard frequency is used for transmission/reception or whether the manual input is used for transmission/reception. It should be said that modes (both the COMM-ADF-AUX mode selection and the mode selector switch) only take effect by the cockpit in command of the radios (there are buttons at the top of the COMM-NAV control panel that are marked COMM CMD and NAV CMD that are used to take control of either function and will be accompanied by a green light in the cockpit with command). There's also a remote indicator in both cockpits which indicates the channel number when the mode selector switch is set to channel, a G when it's set to guard and an M when it's set to manual. I also have a -1 for USAF F-4Es circa 1984 revised 1990, but unfortunately the pages describing the communications radios are missing.

Grim reapers in their preview of Normandy 2 said they believed the map would be released at the end of the month. So I'm thinking Sinai on the 12th and Normandy 2 at some date closer to May.

We dont have the aircraft to support BoB yet, that will be a question to ask when that time comes.

Thanks a lot for taking the time and leaving an answer. I don't doubt at all that I've missed a (or several) step, or did something wrong during install. But there were many things going on, and I became a bit tired and unfocused along the way. However, it's working now. And what I've discovered so far, is pretty amazing.

And Navy aircraft aboard a carrier add not just the exposure to salty air and sea spray, rain, and sun, but a high operating tempo. It's like those car, deck, or truck bed coating tests where they do exposure and wear testing but sped up 1000% by just salt blasting the part for days and days on end or have a robot opening and slamming a door 500 times a minute. Talking to corrosion control guys and maintainers of all sorts it was an around the clock job to keep the squadron's jets up, and not every squadron, air wing, or ship had the same success depending on leadership and supply. One could maybe expect Air Force aircraft to at least have a gentler service life or maybe not as aggressive wear outside of heavy SEA combat rotations in the 60s and 70s. Of course we've had more than a few AF maintainers come through with "we'd never let our jets look like that!" but they also had a different set of circumstances, time, budget, and motivation to work off of.

Tacview 1.9.1 is now available! https://tacview.net/download/ Improved CSV file support, updated databases, and fixed rare crashes on some AMD GPUs. FEATURES & CHANGES ADDED IL-2 fakefield objects are now displayed in the 3D view ADDED command line option /MSAA:false to turn on/off x4 anti-aliasing IMPROVED CSV files support IMPROVED Anticipatory trail is now off by default IMPROVED IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Normandy texture map coordinates IMPROVED Korea database and terrain for BMS 4.37.1 IMPROVED Path α has been renamed to γ to match NASA documentation IMPROVED Fuel export for the DCS: A-10C II FIXES FIXED Rare crash with some AMD GPU & Intel IGPU FIXED Invalid reference mission time (regression)