Leaderboard

DCS World New WWII missions in the following formats: FWAF, Single Player and Multiplayer DCS: Bf 109 K-4 Kurfurst by Eagle Dynamics Updated weather and clouds for all Bf109 Training missions DCS: Mosquito FB VI by Eagle Dynamics Added missing Mosquito SP missions DCS: Combined Arms by Eagle Dynamics WWII Combined Arms Mission – FAC Driving M8 Greyhound version Campaigns Bf 109 K-4 Jagdflieger Campaign by Reflected Simulations Normandy 2 update compatibility Cutscene added Mission 2 target changed to Paris Mission 5 target changed to Portsmouth New briefing and kneeboard visuals Skin updates More accurate speeds & formations Smoother triggers More realistic Weather P-51D: The Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney Campaign by Reflected Simulations Normandy 2 update compatibility Cutscene added Mission 4 target changed to Paris Mission 7 expanded New briefing and kneeboard visuals Skin updates More accurate speeds & formations Smoother triggers Extra voice overs More realistic Weather Spitfire IX The Big Show Campaign by Reflected Simulations Normandy 2 update compatibility Mission 8 target changed to the actual Ligescourt Mission 7 base changed to a stand in for the Orkneys Mission 9 base changed to Ford as in real life Skin updates More accurate speeds & formations Smoother triggers Extra voice overs More realistic Weather

As promised, I'm starting my new accurate map project: Syria! The result will be usable in Tacview, CombatFlite, DCS Web Editor, as a kneeboard mod, as a webmap or as a simple GeoTIFF file. I'll try to detail the process all along the project, step by step. If you dont know about my previous project, check it here.

Great news, ED pushed a hotfix patch today including the massive updates to my 3 Normandy campaigns: Blue Nose Bastards, The Big Show and Jagdflieger. Now you can enjoy them over the new Normandy map both if you updated to 2, and if you haven’t. (But you totally should, in order to enjoy such views). Thank you for your patience and support.

You are correct. I accidentally used the ESSM Block 2 which has a different shape. So I modelled a new one, should be more accurate to the AMRAAM-ER (ESSM Block 1).

This is only .lua edit to make the Normandy 2.0 map a bit more darker, no new or edited textures. I thought I'd upload it, since none of the big names made this yet. DOWNLOAD HERE I used the same aproach as Taz1004 in his Better Trees for Syria mod, so credit goes to him.

Soon...

Тогда поле зрения будет сильно меньше, чем в реале. Это как если бы слепой пилот выискивал самолёты в бинокль. Можно увеличивать LOD вдалеке, почему-то вы категорически не хотите дать игрокам опционально включить этот костыль. Ярлыки, для реалистичной видимости, должны не просвечивать сквозь облака и кабину, расстояние появления ярлыков должно учитывать условия видимости (размер самолёта, освещение и т.д.). Можно сделать контакты более жирными, если изначально рендерить их в более высоком разрешении. Почитайте, как это сделано в War Thunder https://warthunder.ru/ru/devblog/current/2896 А то сейчас, если на большом расстоянии крыло самолёта тоньше 1 пикселя, оно будет то исчезать, то появлятся. Современный софт должен масштабироваться для любого разрешения и размера экрана. Это уже прошлый век, когда какие-то элементы привязаны к количеству пикселей.

The problem with realistically modeling Missile p/k in DCS based on real life data is that the real life data is ironically unreliable. The AIM-4 is an excellent case study of this. It was built to be used with a Hughes guidance system. Cutting edge stuff for the early 1950s. The idea was an interceptor (F-101B/F-102/F-106) would be vectored into a head on attack against incoming Soviet nuclear bombers flying over the north pole. At supersonic closure speeds it’s impossible for a human to arm and effectively employ a weapon, so the Hughes guidance computer would calculate the head on interception data and launch the AIM-4 based on the highest probability of a direct hit. This is why the missile wasn’t built with a proximity fuse; a Tu-95 Bear is a big tough plane, and if you want to take it down you NEED to hit it to get the kill. A damaged bomber that gets 50% of its nuclear payload to the target = millions dead and mission failed. So USAF Air Defense Command uses the Falcon and is fairly happy with it. Meanwhile the USAF is essentially ordered by Robert McNamara to buy the Navy’s F-4B Phantom II, which becomes probably the best decision McNamara ever made in the SecDef chair. With the Navy’s Phantom II comes the Navy’s missiles, in this case the AIM-9B Sidewinder. This didn’t sit well with the USAF leadership when discussions started on a follow up version. The Navy owned the Sidewinder program, which triggered an intra service feud over the Sidewinders future. The political row ended with USAF generals basically telling the Navy to ‘take their Sidewinder and shove it’. They set about bastardizing the bomber interceptor AIM-4 to work with the Phantom II. The Phantom II didn’t have the necessary avionics, so all the launch steps and parameters had to be implemented manually (including triggering the seeker cooling). It’s a heat seeker, the Sidewinders a heat seeker, plug N play right? (or so thought the Generals). Which was like bringing a scoped hunting rifle to a sword duel. The AIM-4 was never built to be used against fighters, a fact Col Robin Olds famously verified over the skies of Vietnam. That decision by USAF Systems Command to lobotomize the AIM-4 ruined the Falcons reputation for all time. It had an abysmal combat PK: but if DCS modeled an F-101B (for one example) with the AIM-4 they couldn’t use that Vietnam data as a guide to model the missiles performance on the Voodoo because it’s an entirely different avionics setup. Lengthy example, but hopefully it gets the point across. Just because an AIM-4/AIM-7/etc scored a 10% PK in Vietnam doesn’t mean that’s what it should score all the time.

ZTZ-99A2 MBT 1.0.1 released! Changelog Version 1.0.1 Changed the display name to ZTZ-99A2 Fixed dependency error Fixed the top speed Thanks! And thank you for the suggestions. I know there might be a Crotale being worked on by an other creator at the moment. Thank you for all the information! A lot of good info and ideas.

The mid upper turret and turret wing which it sits on were ported onto the old model from the new one as we were playing about with the player controllability and it was simpler to do it once than twice

Dear all, If I might stick my nose in on this: We hear you and understand why you wish to retain the currently modeled TGP However, for the following reason, we’ll later (no time frame) adjust it to be an accurate LANTIRN TGP. Due to some incorrectly labeled videos and bad SME feedback, we made an earlier mistake of believing our modeled TGP was a Litening. We were wrong. Despite some initial resistance by us, we eventually agreed with your feedback that we were in fact mostly simulating a LANTIRN TGP. In fact, you all did a great job finding images and references of Block 50s sporting LANTIRN. These partly made us reconsider our stance on this. Thank you. We are doing our very best to model a USAF F-16C Block 50 using 4.2+ OFP. We chose this specifically due to the availability of documentation that we can cite if needed (very important in these times of sensitive information being leaked and resulting investigations). All our available TGP data is limited to LANTIRN and Sniper ATP. Even if we could confidently verify Litening TGP for an OFP 4.2+ F-16C (not secondhand accountings), we have zero reference data for this TGP that we could cite. Anything we put into our simulation must have supporting evidence that we can point to. As mentioned earlier, we still plan to add Sniper ATP. We have good and citable reference data for this, unlike Litening. If at a later point we come across Litening TGP data for OFP 4.2+ or earlier that is complete and citable, we’ll most certainly consider it. Kind regards, Wags

first reviews are needed, it helps a lot to improve the module. Thank you for your support, we are doing our best to release the Sinai module in the near future.

If you'll continue on this pace with these assets, we will find that our beloved airplanes and helis will soon become irrelevant in DCS

Sniper pod not good then?

Happy Sunday Guys! Tarantul is out for testing. If all is well I will release her today. As you can see below I have added liveries for the countries that are currently operating them. Honestly, I'm not sure if all the countries below are still operating them today though. One thing I couldn't sort out was the missile placement in the missile launchers. So I have hidden them for the moment. You will see them once they are released from the missile launchers. Quote

Потому что увеличенные ЛОДы это ересь. Даже время тратить не будем.

Попробую подытожить свои мысли по поводу видимости. Есть вирпилы, которые сидят рядом с изогнутым 80-ти дюймовым экраном с разрешением 8К и каждые 2 года покупают топовую видеокарту, чтобы тянула DCS в 8К. У них поле зрения примерно соответствует реальному и проблем с видимостью нет. Но я не думаю, что таких вирпилов наберётся хотя бы 10 процентов. Теперь возьмём среднестатистического вирпила с экраном 24-32 дюйма и разрешением 1080p и 1440p. Есть следующие варианты решения проблемы видимости: 1) Пользоваться зумом. Получается симулятор слепого летчика с биноклем, т.к. если увеличить поле зрения так, чтобы в маленький монитор влезла картинка, которую человек видит в реале, то видимость будет хуже, чем в реале. А если использовать зум, то поле зрения будет сильно меньше, чем в реале. К слову, в реале есть периферическое зрение, его угол - 120 градусов. 2) Использовать ярлыки. Это могло бы быть решением проблемы, если бы они не просвечивали бы через кабины, облака и т.д., и DCS вычислял бы, на каком расстоянии глаз может увидеть объект, исходя из его размера, освещения, цвета, скорости и т.д. и только с этого расстояния рисовал ярлык для каждого объекта. Сейчас ярлыки появляются на одинаковом расстоянии днём и ночью, при ясной погоде и в облаках и т.д. Поэтому сейчас с помощью ярлыков невозможно добиться реалистичной видимости. 3) Увеличивать LODы вдалеке. В настройках можно указать размер монитора и расстояние от монитора до глаз. Тогда DCS может вычислить, насколько нужно увеличивать LODы, чтобы получить реалистичную видимость. На близком расстоянии (например, ближе 1 км) увеличение можно отключать, тогда в БВБ будут корректные размеры самолёта противника в прицеле. Также увеличение нужно отключать для самолётов на земле, чтобы они не проходили сквозь здания и деревья. Мне кажется, что пункт 3 - это самый лучший вариант решения проблемы видимости. Да, это костыль. А что делать, если вирпил смотрит на виртуальный мир через маленький экран монитора, что само по себе является коствлём? Придётся бороться с этим костылём с помощью другого костыля, как и говорил Чиж. Но почему Чижу категорически не нравится 3 вариант с LODами? По мне, это наименьшее из зол. Чем этот вариант хуже других?

о да, особенно впечатляют "карликовые" здания и деревья вдалеке, которые постепенно увеличиваются относительно размеров техники рядом и рельефа по мере приближения к ним. "как в реальной жизни" прям

The F-4E in Aegean Blue is really brutal. IMO a must have official skin

That would rather be an issue with your imagination than anything else now, wouldn't it? In any event, that would be immaterial - what I like about the idea that it gives server admins one more important tool to try and make their server more attractive. Just by looking at the fact that there are cold starts and hot starts (and even air starts) shows that there is demand. Having a way for a server manager to pass this option on to their players when it makes sense mission-wise could make their lives better (no longer do we have to provide cold and hot slots), it would also - since it's an option - attract more players. From a server admin perspective this is a no-lose aspect. Gamewise, both hot and cold starts are already there, retrofitting the option (simply have two instances of the plane in memory) to DCS would be minuscle in effort with a big boost in playability. Your disdain for people who don't enjoy playing exactly like you do is well documented. It's not a strong argument, though: the very fact that these servers exist and are populated are a testament to the fat that there is demand for this. The great thing about DCS is that it's many things to many people. Just don't play on servers where you know that you will not like the experience. Especially when you visit a server where you know that the people there play in a way that you intensely dislike. My significant other dislikes 'problem solver' movies (you know, action movies like John Wick). Taking her to watch one of these will not end well, so I take my godson. Looking around the filled cinema I see lots of people having fun watching a movie that is the antithesis of what my partner believes to be enjoyable. So both can be right: they can have fun if they do it their way, but it's not for everyone. So here, it's not 'be careful what you wish for' here. It's 'mind where you are going for a good time'. Because people on the servers that you love to hate do enjoy themselves. Legitimately, neither is better or worse. That's what DCS is for. If DCS offers mission designers to pass players the option of hot/cold starting, it would in my opinion, greatly increase the quality of life for many players. My missions would implement it in a heartbeat.

К сожалению, про видимость писать бесполезно. Разработчики считают, что видимость нормальная, а недовольные должны сесть рядом с огромным экраном или использовать ярлыки. В принципе, дальность появления ярлыков можно было бы настроить для имитации реалистичной видимости, но ярлыки просвечивают сквозь кабину, облака, туман и т.д., так что реализма включение ярлыков не прибавит. К слову, в старом Ил-2 ярлыки не просвечивали сквозь кабины и облака. Уважаемые разработчики, вот таблица дальности распознавания самолётов https://airpages.ru/mn/scout_02.shtml Прежде чем писать про реалистичную видимость, попробуйте на мониторе среднестатистического вирпила размером 24-32 дюйма и разрешением 1080p или 1440p сравнить дальность распознавания самолётов с таблицей при дефолтном зуме (при нажатии Enter). Вы же делаете DCS не для 10 процентов вирпилов, которые сидят рядом с огромным экраном. А методики улучшения видимости, например, описанные тут https://why485.itch.io/smart-scaling-demonstration по мнению ED наверное разработали дураки.

Hard to say for sure without looking at your dcs.log file, but it seems that you installed those User Mods on an incorrect path ... they should go at /Saved Games/ Why question ED? did you purchase those Mods at ED's store?

I did some quick testing, and found something interesting. I set the apache up at about 85% torque and 100kts. This resulted in a slight climb, but I wanted to ensure airspeed and torque remain constant in the turn so as not to change coordinated flight parameters. With the ball centered, I then started a turn as tight as I could without losing airspeed or having to increase torque. So, with the collective and pedals frozen, I turned the aircraft and maintained (within 5kts / 5%) my parameters. In both turns, the ball immediately falls to the inside of the turn, as if it's following gravity, not the G loading of the aircraft as it should. This is where it got interesting: In a left turn, the SCAS yaw channel slowly motored over to re-center the ball in the turn. On roll-out, the ball deflected heavily to the right, until the SCAS motored back to my trimmed center, where the ball re-centered. So in a left turn, it seems the SCAS wants to correct for the incorrect ball behaviour, resulting in a significantly uncoordinated turn. In a right turn, none of that behaviour was exhibited - the SCAS stayed centered in the trimmed position, and on roll out the ball centered again on it's own. So in addition to the ball behaviour, there seems to be some inconsistency in how the yaw channel deals with it. Add to this, if I try and center the ball myself in the turn (as a good helicopter pilot should always do), I'm actually putting the aircraft in a significantly uncoordinated situation. I wonder if this uncoordinated flight is causing some of the wonkyness / uncommanded roll that we are seeing... Here's a track file of my testing: apache ball.trk

Here is an example of what can induce an uncommanded snap roll. This is being way to aggressive on the inputs while the aircraft is in an unbalanced state. I'm not a SME, so I can't say if this behavior is accurate, but with the current way the Apache is modeled in DCS, this will get you into trouble every time, so don't do it. Notice I have quite a bit of left stick, trying to bank left toward the "target", but the other forces at play easily overcome my left stick and I end up making a full 360 roll to the right. This is the track from the above clip as well. Induced_Roll.trk This can also happen when aggressively side-slipping while trying to keep the nose pointed on-target. For example, I'm in a hover and my CPG has a missile in the air on a T90, and the T90 fires a sniper at me. If I aggressively slip to one side or the other to dodge the sniper, while trying to keep the nose on target, the aircraft can easily be upset and roll over.

Churches and factory chimneys appear way too large or high. They stand out from very far away I don't know if this is the case everywhere on the map, but in the Paris region, this is very disturbing. You can see these buildings (churches and factories) from very far away but the cities in which they are look completely flat, making the effect even worse. All churches look like they are as large as cathedrals, even as high as Notre Dame cathedral in Paris! Factory chimneys are all too high.

Is @Bunyap still around? I'm sure I'm not the only one aching for his campaigns to be updated for Normandy 2.0, especially after all the love and research he had put into them. Any news?

Haha, it's the Chinese ZTQ-15 Light Tank with a 105 mm gun.

Jack, to each his own. For me it was the other way around - going from DCS Spit IX to GB one when it was released "there" felt like flying a brick. The primary reason is the overall elevator and rudder sensitivity, which is just much higher in DCS. If it wobbles, means you just overcontrol it badly. Also, don't forget to turn off auto rudder and takeoff helper in special options - they'll only make things worse. Once you get used to that sensitivity, however (and lack of GB's Spit's "rubber/filtered" response), IXs in both sims don't feel THAT different in maneuvers. Speed retention is a different thing, though. One thing DCS Spit needs BADLY is texture overhaul of the cockpit. Some of these files remember 2017 and specmaps instead of roughmets... ...but the Normandy release trailer showed (and Nineline confirmed in the comments) that retexture is indeed coming. Yay!

OPEN BETA ONLY if you bought Normandy 1.0 but DID NOT BUY Normandy 2.0 you may be a little confused as to why DCS is telling you that you already have Normandy 2.0 Heres how it works. - Once you have installed the very latest update (2.8.4.39259.1), DCS WILL install the entire Normandy 2.0 map for you, BUT - You Wont be able to see the true high density Normandy 2.0 map that you see in all the perty YouTube videos being posted. - You WILL see the Eiffel tower but you wont see a lot around it and as you get closer you will see a little more around it but nothing to make you say “WOW!” - When you visit the DCS site to buy Normandy 2.0 for 10 bucks you will get multiple warnings telling you that you already have it and you need to STOP! Ignore the warnings, pay the ten bucks and what will happen is that DCS will detect the purchase and “unlock” Normandy 2.0 in all its High def and High density glory. DONE! You now have a fully functioning Normandy 2.0 Map with all the perks

If you are taking Suggestions We don't have any Chinese land based sites. eg HQ 9/16 (already got them on ships).

Paper by Su-27 designer with some useful info for calculating aero performance Fo.pdf

Quick Update: Work has been minimal over the last 10 or so days, due to personal ailments as well as a hardware failure. Rest Assured it's getting closer, I have been checking things off one by one the last few months, Granted I have added things to the checklist; However, the moving finish line ("Feature Creeping") has been held to a minimum as much as I can. I can't give a definite release date, as when my new hardware arrives, I have to catch up, as well as integrate a few functions and test those. May / June would be a good Time frame, but even that's not firm.

Its indeed mounting bracket from the cluster canister

It works now put the T-84 Oplot in and the ZTZ-99 showed up

Ah, that's a nice mix-up. A coalition of different countries. Unfortunately, there are a lot of countries that don't have large Navies out there.

lol. “A pessimist is a man who thinks everybody is as nasty as himself, and hates them for it.” ― George Bernard Shaw

А вот тут я обалдел.

It should be visible with "China" or "Combined red forces". It has a [CH] prefix like all my assets.

23Apr23: Added "My method of using the trim..." Note: I used Instant Trim in this video because I forgot I had switched from Central Position trimmer mode to do a compare/contrast video at some point. I decided to just roll with it because I had already hit record. My brain took a little while to adapt to how Instant Trim handles versus Central Position, but the work flow would still be the same except I would be letting go of the stick to allow it to recenter immediately after pressing the force trim button. Also, I got really tired of trying to type all of this out, because it kept getting miscontstrued or viewed through an absolutist lens. Hopefully this clears some things up.

I'm deeply impressed by the great work of TVC easter egg of LJQCN101. Although I know the JF-17 HARV is an internal test model for developers and not intended to be shared in public at first, I wonder if there is any possibility for us to get a J-8II ACT experimental aircraft as similar role? For those who are not familiar with it: J-8II ACT is the early research platform for Chinese active control system or just say FBW. A single axis analogous FBW version J-8 ACT became the first Chinese aircraft with relaxed static stability in 1988. While it was lost in 1992 in digital FBW test due to a neglected software defect, another J-8II with three-axis digital FBW was tested successfully in 1996. To my knowledge, this project ended in 1999 and was not implemented onto J-8II series, but the achievement and experience were used in later FBW system development, including L-15 and other Chinese FBW fighters. Edit: The first single axis J-8 ACT in 1988 and lost in 1991 is actually a J-8I. The three-axis FBW one of 1996 is J-8II, which is what I mean at first. Earlier I mistaken the single axis one as also J-8II. The latter one was also modified with two fixed canards, to decrease the static stability. This plane is now on display in Shenyang. To model it the art model and aerodynamic data is also needed to change. Considering this, sadly I give up on it from my wish list.

I was trying to troubleshoot the exterior light being too bright (which was brought up many times before) and noticed that the size of the light depends on the game resolution. Below is screenshot taken at two different resolutions and then blown up to match in photoshop. You can see the light appears larger in 1280x720. This does not happen on Viper or A10C-2 as shown further below. Screenshots are taken in 2D to compare better but the problem is much worse in VR. Because size of the light on Hornet depends on the resolution of your VR mirror. Not resolution of your headset. So if you have small VR mirror, you get huge Christmas lights in VR. Light rendering on Hornet needs to be world space like Viper. Not screen space. I believe this is what's also happening to Supercarrier IFLOLS. Viper - Size of the light remains same between two resolutions.

Вот у меня тоже есть старый, давно всех мучающий, ни раз поднимавшийся ранее вопрос. Вы выпустили карту Нормандия 2. Очень приятная карта с рядом симпатичных визуальных улучшений. За это конечно спасибо. Но как на ней летать? Как? Видимость контактов как была ниже всех разумных граней так и осталось на нуле. Последние годы всё больше людей играет с высокими разрешениями экрана. И на этих экранах видимость контактов вообще отсутствует. Ибо размер так называемых "мух" стал чуть ли не в 8 раз меньше чем в fullHD. Что не позволяет находить контакты в небе даже с идеальным зрением прислонившись в упор к монитору, при этом точно зная высоту направление и дальность до врага. Когда вы займётесь фундаментальными проблемами которые останавливают большинство игроков от полётов в онлайне? А так же я тут наткнулся на крик души одного из вирпилов. Приложу сюда ссылку без надежды на какое то значимое улучшение но в надежде что вы всё же хотя бы прочитаете его посыл и попробуете хоть на секунду прочувствовать то что он просит: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/93733-dcs-wwii/?do=findComment&comment=5185694

Dear Sir, As mentioned, there is no time frame for this change. Given we have much higher priorities, it would not be anytime soon. We simply wanted to provide a heads up for all those noting TGP implementation discrepancies earlier. No, not really. When provided with sufficient evidence, we are always open to reconsider implementations. However, in the case of the FM/FLCS, such evidence has not been provided. Let’s keep on topic though, please. Kind regards, Wags

The thing you don't seem to realize is that for many people real and obvious changes did happen in the previous patch. I'm not talking about people not knowing how to take off, but all weird sudden rolls that are happening during e.g. slow, trimmed forward flight, that certainly didn't happen before the previous patch (not the latest one), or rolling related to collective changes (which is logical, as you explained, but still different than before the patch). We believe you didn't intend these changes and did not change the "core flight model" that you're so stuck on, but you yourself said that the FMC collective channel and center of mass did change in that patch. Why is it so hard to believe that perhaps these or some other unintended (or internally undocumented/uncommunicated?) change did cause this behavior for all these people, even if you don't see it in your own testing? I'd understand your point if you really only changed e.g. some textures or pilot models or such... Even Casmo said in his video a short while back that the apache behaved differently for him after the patch, that he found it doing unexpected things when he tried to repeat what he had done before. I'm inclined to think he knows a thing or two about helicopters, so it's not because he doesn't know how to fly it. So here you're basically calling your customers stupid, that's just great. Really makes me want to pay you guys more money.

Config_-_Views_-_multi-monitor_kneeboard.zip

Work in progress... ZTZ 99A2 with active protection system. It's definitely not perfect, but a representation of an APS with the DCS limitations. It will do it's best to protect the MBT from incoming ATGMs or AGMs by trying to blow them up within a couple of hundred meters. It scans 360 deg around the MBT and only has ammo for a couple of incoming threats. Unfortunately it cannot detect shells.

I cant see how thats true... the flight characteristics have dramatically changed since the last OB update and not for the better. Id suggest trying to fly it yourself as now on take off she is exceptionally sensitive to rolling on her side where as before she would lift smoothly and hold herself quite stable, a;lso the collective is much more sensitive. Life has simply become more challenging if piloting the rear seat only wiuthout a human CP/G. Considering I’m not the only one suggesting changes to the Flight Model, surely it’s worth investigating by ED.. a side by side comparison which i believe may surprise you.