Leaderboard

In the new development note, we will discuss the engine starting system on the La-7 aircraft module. One interesting feature of this system is the use of compressed air as energy for the starter. The compressed air can be supplied either from an airfield source or from an onboard pneumatic system. The main component of the system is the PN-1 starting pump, which is essentially a fuel-air mixture injector acting as a mini-carburetor during engine start-up. First, the starting chamber of the "carburetor" is manually filled by pumping the plunger. Then, the valve is opened and the compressed air, passing through the starting chamber, rotates the engine to a speed of 50-60 rpm, while simultaneously spraying the fuel-air mixture directly into the cylinders. Finally, ignition is initiated and the start-up is supported by supplying the main fuel under pressure with the help of an alveolar pump. As they say, it's better to see something once than to hear about it a hundred times. The engine start-up process is clearly demonstrated in our first video about the module.

Hey Guys, I have released the Tarantul Class Update version 1.0.2. Page #1 of the Forum #10 One thing I forgot to add under features is there are livery Flags for 8 countries that operate the Tarantul including Bulgaria, Egypt, India, Nicaragua, Panama, Romania, Yemen, and Turkmenistan. However, Turkmenistan is not a country in DCS. Panama is a neutral country. PLEASE PM ME if there are any major technical issues with the mod. Thanks. Enjoy!!!

Hmm...to me it feels like the most realistic representation of the Spit in any sim ever. And I've tried them all. It completely matches what I read about it in all those memoires. And once you master it, it's not wobbly at all. Of course you need proper controls, properly set up, and actual practice. In any other game I've tried the Spit flew just like any other aeroplane, with none of the 'personality' it's supposed to have, consequently, no practice needed. Check out this tutorial on how to fly it properly:

NEW EVERYTHING very soon

Hi, @skywalker22, I like that name for some reason. This was set for analysis internally. This is one of many aspects of the Viper that may need some tweaking. The comparison with the Hornet, however, is not correct as that plane doesn't have dedicated taxi lights. Those are also landing lights and, as such, they are supposed to project much further. Thanks for your time.

Of all the planes in IL2 , I liked the Spitfire the best, still IL2 style,which to me seemed unrealistic, like all the rest of their planes. DCS Spitfire feels like flying a real plane (Like all DCS warbirds) for the Spitfire and Mosquito you need a good joystick with extensions to enjoy its realism. If you dont have extensions then add curves. There is no comparisson between any of the planes in IL2 to the ones in DCS IMHO. I am ruined now and just can fly IL2 anymore.

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

DCS: Normandy 2.0 Update FAQ When will it be released? Very soon you will be able to enjoy all the hard work done by Ugra Media. What is DCS: Normandy 2.0, and what updates does it bring? The new DCS: Normandy 2.0 map is a significant upgrade over the original DCS: Normandy 1944 map and will be a greatly enhanced experience of war-time Normandy. DCS: Normandy 2.0 is significantly larger than DCS: Normandy 1944 and contains: much greater detail; historical accuracy; texture resolution; much larger high-detail areas (including London and Paris); updated map objects such as models of buildings, trees, bridges, airfield objects, rail lines, roads, fences, poles, and more; many new and remodelled medium to small size urban locations such as new ports, airfields, factories, rivers, canals, and much more. The image below is a map size and detail comparison: The release of this new map benefits all existing owners of DCS: Normandy 1944. Owners of the original DCS: Normandy 1944 map will receive a free update that enhances the whole area of the original map to the same high detail level as in DCS: Normandy 2.0. The free update will also include the new much larger DCS: Normandy 2.0 total map area and airfields but at a lower level of detail. For a limited time, players that own DCS: Normandy 1944 or DCS: The Channel are eligible to upgrade to or purchase DCS: Normandy 2.0 for a discounted rate. Please read further into the FAQ for more detail. Please note that DCS: Normandy 2.0 supersedes DCS: Normandy 1944, which will no longer be available for purchase after the release of DCS: Normandy 2.0. Information describing for each user case continues below. The FAQ provided here should answer the most common questions you may have. How much will it cost? DCS: Normandy 2.0 will be $59.99 USD, but has a 20% discount applied while in early access and is $47.99 for this duration. For a limited time, players that own DCS: Normandy 1944 or DCS: The Channel are eligible to purchase or upgrade to DCS: Normandy 2.0 for a discounted rate. Please see the pricing matrix below: You already own: You get DCS: Normandy 2.0 for: Normandy 1944 $14.99 USD The Channel $14.99 USD Normandy 1944 & The Channel $9.99 USD The pricing above may be subject to change. How do I purchase DCS: Normandy 2.0? And am I able to try it first? Click here if flying in Open Beta (will be updated with store page on release) Click here if flying in Steam (will be updated with store page on release) If you are flying in Open Beta you may activate a two-week Free Trial of DCS: Normandy 2.0 by pressing the ‘Trial’ button beside the module in the E-shop. You will then be able to download DCS: Normandy 2.0 via the in-game module manager and will have full access to the new terrain for two weeks. The Free Trial programme extends to most DCS module; look for the ‘Trial’ button in the e-shop to participate. I already own DCS: Normandy 1944. What happens? Excellent! Your existing DCS: Normandy 1944 map will be updated for free so that the whole area of the original map is in the same high-detail as in the DCS: Normandy 2.0, and you will benefit from updated airfields and a significantly increased total map area but at a lower level of detail. You will still be able to play on your favourite servers or with friends even if they upgrade to DCS: Normandy 2.0 and you don’t, but your areas of high-detail are significantly smaller and may be missing world objects. If you wish to, you may pay $14.99 USD to upgrade to DCS: Normandy 2.0 for all the benefits described above. I already own DCS: The Channel. What happens? DCS: The Channel remains a separate map made by Eagle Dynamics SA and has not been updated regarding this release. In the corner where there is some map overlap, details between the maps may not match up. See the included map showing the DCS: The Channel map vs the DCS: Normandy 2.0 Map Specifically, DCS: Normandy 2.0 has different airfields, high-detail areas and focus versus DCS: The Channel. If you wish to, you may pay $14.99 USD to purchase Normandy for all the benefits described above. I already own both DCS: Normandy 1944 and DCS: The Channel. What about me? You will automatically benefit with an updated DCS: Normandy 1944 map as described above, but as you additionally own DCS: The Channel, you may upgrade to DCS: Normandy 2.0 for just $9.99 USD I don’t already own DCS: Normandy 1944 or DCS: The Channel. What are my options? The DCS: Normandy map is available for purchase for $59.99 USD with a 20% discount while in Early Access. The original DCS: Normandy 1944 map is no longer available for purchase. I have DCS Normandy: 1944 and don’t want to pay for an upgrade! You don’t need to; your existing DCS: Normandy 1944 map will automatically update and you’ll receive updated airfields and a significantly increased total map area. You will still receive a discounted price if you ever do decide to upgrade to DCS: Normandy 2.0 for all of the benefits described above. Can I fly with friends or servers if we have mismatching versions of Normandy? Yes, you will still be able to play with friends and on your favorite servers even if you have DCS: Normandy 1944 and they are running DCS: Normandy 2.0, or vice-versa. You will be able to fly together but the detail that each of you sees will differ. Those flying DCS: Normandy 2.0 will have a significantly larger area of high detail, including London and Paris and many new and remodelled medium to small size urban locations such as new ports, airfields, factories, rivers, canals, and much more. Will I have both maps after updating or purchasing? No. The normal upgrading procedures will be followed and all players will only have one map installed, but their versions may differ. Those that upgrade or purchase new will see and fly DCS: Normandy 2.0, and those that don’t upgrade will see and fly DCS: Normandy 1944 (but with updated/upgraded airfields) and a larger map size overall (but in lower detail and with missing world objects). The original DCS: Normandy 1944 map is no longer available for purchase How big is DCS: Normandy 2.0 compared to the DCS: Normandy 1944 map? Please see the attached image that illustrates the low and high-detail areas of DCS: Normandy 2.0 compared to the original DCS: Normandy 1944. DCS: Normandy 2.0 is significantly larger overall with much greater areas of high detail, including London and Paris. DCS: Normandy 2.0 spans 400x600 km, with the majority of that in high detail. What new cities and landmarks have been added? Chief among them are London and Paris, but many new medium to small size urban locations make up the greatly expanded area and include new ports, airfields, factories, rivers, canals, and more. Most of the DCS: Normandy 1944 map objects have also been greatly improved; for example: buildings, bridges, airfield objects, rail lines, roads, trees, fences, poles, and much more. Am I paying for the same map twice? No. This new map is a significant upgrade over the original and will be a greatly enhanced experience of war-time Normandy. Please read What is DCS: Normandy 2.0 above for more detail of the changes. Please also read I already own DCS: Normandy 1944. What happens? above for more detail of the differences. Why create DCS: Normandy 2.0? The original DCS: Normandy 1944 map was created using older map technology and tools which rendered it impossible to simply expand and update the existing map to achieve DCS: Normandy 2.0. DCS: Normandy 2.0 has been created with new map technology and tools that have allowed us to increase the map size and amount of detail greatly. In order to make the maps compatible with one another, the airfields in the original map have all been updated so that the spawn locations match. This way, players can fly together regardless of whether they have the new DCS: Normandy 2.0 or DCS: Normandy 1944. What about my missions and campaigns? Some work will be required to adjust for some of the changes to the map. All existing airfields have been updated and so spawn-locations, script triggers, and so on will need to be checked and re-worked. New airfields have been created entirely, so there is much greater opportunity for mission and campaign scenarios. For example, many of the UK airfields have been updated heavily to be more historically accurate. Campaigns such as those from Reflected Simulations have been updated and should be working at release. Please watch his video on this here. ED and Ugra Media will work hard to get the remaining content updated shortly after the Early Access release. If continuing to fly DCS: Normandy 1944, missions that have been updated to suit DCS: Normandy 2.0 might reference world objects you will not be able to see without the update. Will the framerates be worse than the current DCS: Normandy 1944 map? Using the latest Terrain Development Kit (TDK), DCS: Normandy 2.0 has been well optimised and so despite a great increase in the number and detail of objects you should see no loss in performance compared to the original DCS: Normandy 1944 map. This will also be aided by the recent release of Multi-Threading by Eagle Dynamics. Please see here for details. Will there be winter textures? At this time, no. We plan for DCS: Normandy 2.0 to include Summer as it is being created around operations in Normandy in the summer of 1944 (Opération Neptune) but it will also include Spring and Autumn seasons. What airfields will be included at release? The total number of airfields has been increased to 50 for the Early Access version. Both owners of DCS: Normandy 1944 and those that upgrade to or purchase DCS: Normandy 2.0 will see all of these. Please see the following list of the initial airfields, which may increase after the Early Access release: Airfields in France A1 Saint Pierre du Mont A21 Sainte-Laurent-sur-Mer Fecamp_Benouville Flers A2 Cricqueville-en-Bessin A24 Biniville Evreux Goulet B17 Carpiquet A6 Beuzeville Guyancourt Hauterive A12 Lignerolles A8 Picauville Villacoublay Lonrai A14 Cretteville A9 Le Molay Saint-Andre de l Eure Poix A15 Maupertus B11 Longues-sur-Mer Orly Ronai A16 Brucheville B2 Bazenville Amiens_Glisy Rouen-Boos A20 Lessay - оригинальны B3 Sainte-Croix-sur-Mer Argentan Saint-Aubin A3 Cardonville B4 Beny-sur-Mer Avranches Le Val-Saint-Pere Triqueville A4 Deux Jumeaux B7 Rucqueville Barville Vrigny A5 Chippelle B8 Sommervieu Conches Broglie A7 Azeville Beauvais-Tille Creil Beaumont-le-Roger B9 Lantheuil Cormeilles-en-Vexin Deauville Bernay Saint Martin A17 Meautis Dinan-Trelivan Essay Airfields in UK Chailey Stoney Cross Farnborough Ford Funtington Gravesend Heathrow (as it was at this time, it is under construction and not usable) Kenley Needs Oar Point Tangmere West Malling Deanland Friston Lymington Odiham We hope that you thoroughly enjoy exploring and experiencing the incredible new WW2 theatre that is DCS: Normandy 2.0. We would also like to extend special thanks to our partners Ugra Media for their continued dedication and hard work. As always, we also would like to thank you for your continued passion and support. Yours sincerely, Eagle Dynamics and Ugra Media

This map is incredible. I've been flying a heli out of the RAF base I was stationed at, and mooching around my home town, and southern England. It's stunning. Thanks and well done.

Hello Ivan, I had to make some minor updates late yesterday afternoon. It's out for final testing now. I will be releasing her within the hour. It's 1315 pm Eastern standard time. So It should be released by 1430 Eastern or so or earlier.

DCS Spitfire has ruined it for me, I honestly don't use it in IL2 as it just feels so wrong. I can use it in Clod which is closer to DCS than to IL2. But DCS spit just feels so fantastic

High detail terrains require massive work to undertaken, giving them for free is not good business sense, devs need to be paid for their work. We have two free terrains already, and a third on the way ( Marianas WWII ). We have no plans to change our business model, we have been developing for well over a decade and want to continue to. Please remember our rules here on the forum and discussion of other games / sims, we are not interested in what other sims or games are doing, we know what they are doing and it would not work for us. thank you

Thank you for the information!

This is kinda what I was getting at when I asked if they plan to wait until SNIPER is implemented to remove LITENING. I'll definitely be upset if they take away capabilities (as realistic or not as that may be) after giving us the LITENING and telling us for so long that it was correct and they had data from SMEs, etc. I'm really concerned that they kept telling us for so long that the community was wrong because they had SMEs and manuals that we don't and then they all of a sudden completely change tact and say they don't have enough data to say the implementation of LITENING is right. So what were they looking at all that time? Why were their SMEs telling them it was correct? Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with more choices, but don't limit what I can do with my jet in the mean time over concerns about 'realism' when you messed it up so much in the first place. It's not like we're getting something the jet can't actually do - just some of the pages aren't quite right (potentially), right? Also, why were they fine with having the F-16 not able to utilize the KNOWN 9G capabilities for so long, especially since people have been complaining about that for a while?

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.

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!

Soon...

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

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?

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

We have the World War II Marianas on the way and two Normany/channel maps we really need some ships especially battleships

Nowadays... "that" new glass tech still not being implemented. Also is more annoying than ever after 1 and a half years from the closure of the original thread and nothing has changed in no one WW2 warbirds. This full opacity layer is unreal and 200% put you out of immersiveness. We all know spotting in DCS WW2 is "special" but these kind of details make it even more "special". Flying in the mustang is like if you were all time in an eternal 06:00 am London Foggy day inside your cockpit (a bird cage model would be better than our bubble canopy), and the worst of it is when you feel it in an overcast map, in a scattered sky in summer time, at dawn, at dusk, no matters what is your relative possition respect Sun (light incidence) or in the FOV zoom level you are, etc,etc.,etc.,... ad infinitum. Meanwhile we're waiting this new tech implementation..... Could it be possible in any near future update to get any kind of interim official (*)solution? Just fadding the oppacity of the dds file in the ingame default textures file (as simple as that), please? (*) I said official before anyone would come and tell me there's a mod that works pretty well for him/her/it. I'm looking for an universal solution for all WW2 DCS users not for a local mend for a few. null

First of all, it's definitely a very nice map with lots of efforts put into it and as of now, it's the largest normandy map and definitely one of the best from any flying combat simulator. It also run smooth in VR for me, including over Paris or London, which is amazing. For this first discovery of the Normandy 2.0 map, I was flying around low-level with a Huey. After all these Normandy maps I've flown over, and after all the hype I read about this one, I was maybe putting the bar too high. Please note that I live in the Paris region, in a place near Versailles on the map, and I've been many times to the Normandy region, especially visiting the D-Day landing beaches. So flying over these places, I knew what I was expecting, and yes, I know this is supposed to represent a WWII map. The one issue that annoyed me a lot right away is the scaling issue (I think it's an issue) of the churches and the factory chimneys. They're way too large. In an urban area like Paris region, It's impossible to see churches so far away, because they surrounded by other building. I'm not talking about the few cathedrals in this region, but regular churches. Same for factory chimney. They look way to high. I posted a bug on this one. The urban area around Paris doesn't look very dense. Of course, it wasn't as dense as today, but at least we should see more villages all around Paris. It feels really empty to me. The famous monuments in Paris (Eiffel Tower, Louvres palace, Notre Dame) are all gorgeous, but I'm missing for example the very visible Sacré Coeur Basilic on top of Montmartre hill. The landing beaches and "Atlantic wall" fortifications look really nice and the beaches look fine, but there are too many of these weird big round rocks everywhere on the beaches. I don't know if the map is supposed to be before the D-Day landing or not and I haven't checked if you could change the date, but I like the idea of some other WWII sims where you can see the map before and after landing (e.g Mulberry harbor in Arromanches). Again, the Normandy countryside seem a bit too empty: where are all the villages? Where are the German fortifications on the island next to St Vaast la Hougue? This is just my first impression and I hope I'll enjoy it more after more flights other this map. Once again, it's a very nice map, but in mind, I was expecting at least the same wow effect as Syria map and it wasn't the case so far.

Bendix Air Data Computer - Part 1: First Look Inside (YouTube) Bendix Air Data Computer - Part 2: Master Ken Explains (YouTube) Reverse-engineering an electromechanical Central Air Data Computer (Ken Shirriff's blog)

I just wanted to shout out a big thanks to everyone on the ED team. I’m beyond impressed with what’s been coming out, from DCS MT (multi thread) which is a huge game changer to giving us major changes for the dedicated server use. The ongoing updates that takes this sim one step closer to perfection. But the one thing I’m most impressed about is how you actually listen to the people and build on that. So thank you all for what you produced and continue to produce. Cheers Wood

To destroy fuel or ammunition warehouses/storage on airfields, a 250kg bomb (500lb) direct hit does not sufficiently damage these buildings to destroy them. The minimum required is a 500kg, or a 1000lb bomb. For these types of buildings, especially considering they contain volitile ammunition or liquids, the minimum damage required is rather excessive. Something in the ballpark of perhaps a 100lb (50kg), perhaps 250lb, should be the minimum required to incapacitate these small supply buildings. 500lb bomb test.trk 1000lb bomb test.trk

Finally, it's finished! Saved in .docx, .pdf and .odt format, can be found here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1DwOw7jiU3boEWPP-jzZHdauKbJ-7QSC6?usp=sharing I'm a quite bit burnt-out on this one, so the english translation will not happen, at least not for now. Of course, feel free to translate it. A good starting point is the english version of the JA-37 Viggen SFI (can be found in the forums) that have a lot of overlap with the AJS37 document. I would like to thank you all for your encouragement in this project, it has kept me going to see the project to the finishing line. I will now take a much needed break, but the next mountain to climb is the ATIS37 training document, that could be fun! Of course, the SFI documents are public domain and you are free to do what you want with them. Enjoy!

I have reported churches as their draw distance seems much higher than surrounding areas so make it worse, also asked if they will do some more church variations. Chimneys I am not seeing as much of an issue, they seem to be in areas that make sense and in many era specific photos you do see a lot. One option is in your missions to use scenery destruction etc to make it more lived-in and war torn.

Я вернулся на 10-ку, накатил "Windows 10 Pro 22H2 19045.2728 x64 by SanLex [Lightweight] [En-Ru]" проблем не наблюдаю, в сборке Microsoft Store удален, восстановить минутное дело. Никакого смысла сидеть на 11-ой не увидел, она ещё более перегружена шлаком: телеметрией, процессами лишними. Не смог от неё добиться той плавности картинки и качества звука, что были у меня на 10-ке.

This is a 1944 era map. Most Airfields are.... fields. Dirt-strips. Not suitable for jet-fighters. If you aren't into WWII stuff, you are far better off with Syria (or SA perhaps). I haven't measured the gazillions of Air strips - and I'm not going to, but I'm pretty sure you will be disappointed. Edit: or use an Aircraft-Carrier and kind of replay Final Countdown.

Да почему вы решили что народ играет в 4к на мониторах меньше 32(31,5) дюймов? Откуда у вас такая странная статистика? Кто вам это сказал. Ну это же не правда. А вы сделайте опрос. Все с кем я летаю рыдают белугами на тему видимости контактов. Буквально вот ВСЕ. Особенно это относится к людям которые играют на больших мониторах с высоким разрешением. Но вы с упорством достойным лучшего применения отказываетесь осознавать проблему. Сделайте опрос, посмотрим что думает "большинство" про видимость контактов в dcs. Особенно это актуально для поршневой авиации. Что вам стоит сделать небольшое голосование на эту тему? Совершенно очевидно что вы не слышите или не хотите слышать коммунити. Или что ещё хуже, не понимаете суть проблемы и считаете что всё хорошо.

I think you should read previous pages as it is what was already talked about.

When?

Thanks to currenthill for bringing me such a quality mod, as a Chinese player I am happy to see a high quality Chinese gear mod. however I would like to point out some minor issues about 99A2. In fact, in China, ZTZ-99A2 refers to the ZTZ-99A, which is the latest ZTZ-99 at the moment. I have observed your model, and I think it is more like a fusion of the ZTZ-99 and ZTZ-99G (that's a folk term, but a more accurate term would be "一期改" and "二期改"), with some equipment from the ZTZ-99A. （ZTZ-99，99式坦克一期改,In War Thunder it is called ZTZ99-II.） (ZTZ-99G，99式坦克二期改，In War Thunder it is called ZTZ99-III) Thank you again for your excellent work and I hope the pictures I have provided for you can be used as a reference.

You give the web's commander various weapons to plan the WW III ...

currenthill , you are the chinese military fan's God !

Given Ugra's excellent! history with the Syria map, I'm sure Normandy 2 will get solid attention over the next few months.

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).

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.

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

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

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.

I'll just leave this right here. One of thousands of photos I took during my deployments. F-16CJ from the 13th EFS over Iraq, 2007. Carrying LITENING! Even the ANG BLk30s were carrying LITENING. So here's my thoughts. You're not solely using USAF docs, but instead, using data from the Greeks and Turks to fill in gaps. Hence the LANTIRN.

Я карты перенес на диск D. На примере карты Марианн. На диске D создал папку "DCS World Modules" Перемещаем папку MarianaIslands, расположенную: C:\Games\DCS World\Mods\terrains на диск D, в папку DCS World Modules. Запускаем командную строку от имени администратора, для этого выполняем команду через меню Пуск. Правой кнопкой мыши - Пуск - Выполнить: пишем cmd и нажимаем кнопку OK. пишем это и жмем Enter. mklink /J "C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\terrains\MarianaIslands" "D:\DCS World Modules\MarianaIslands"

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Not only can you simulate it in a game, you can also easily make it enjoyable and immersive. Same as battling with a broken aircraft can be fun and exciting in sim, while being less fun in real life. Driving a car through a field of rocks: Driving sims can easily do that. The important aspect is, that you cannot only convey it through the flight dynamics (or driving mechanics in this case), but you'll have to utilize visual art and sound-design. Without sound-design especially it might just feel as if your controller is jittering, but with proper sound it will immediately communicate the bumbs and vibration. You can add camera effcts and if you want to go the extra mile, you can add cockpit elements visually engaging with the vibration. Can be done, has been done since ages. Could be done in DCS, requires effort though!

We are simulating an F16. So why aren't we simulating the pilot? Real F16 pilots need to be able to maintain a 15 second 9g turn in the centrifuge without help of the G-suit. So why does the DCS virtual pilot start blacking out after a few second of 8g? (while wearing a virtual g suit) Dont tell me its sudden onset of G's. In the centrifuge it goes from 1 to 9 in less than a second.

There is no such thing as AIM-120 supported by HMCS in BORE mode. When BORE is selected the missile diamond is centered on the HUD always and the missile launches straight ahead. There is no direction of the missile via helmet like AIM-9. In slaved mode the missile is cued by radar which may be cued by helmet e.g. ACM BORE but in bore mode the missile only looks straight ahead.