Leaderboard

Dear all, It has been decided that we will release the Sniper TGP before creating an accurate LANTIRN pod to replace the existing Litening TGP. This means that the Litening TGP will remain in its current form until after the delivery of the Sniper TGP. We believe this will be a more popular approach for our customers as no capability will be lost prior to the release of the Sniper TGP. As mentioned earlier, we are currently unable to include an accurate Litening TGP given the lack of non-controlled, public reference data. If this changes in the future, we’ll certainly consider adding the Litening back. Thanks for your patience and understanding and we look forward to continuing to bring you the most accurate F-16C possible. The ED Team

Already in the making: Cheers!

I will send you a message. Here one new render

We have found a possible issue and are working on a fix, thank you for your patience

Простите, но вы своими каверзными вопросами мешаете человеку хотеть. Хочет он и все тут. И степень его хотения наглядно подтверждается неисчислимым количеством сообщений...

Input devices was in the DCS core area, and this is not correct as it is hardware so was moved. I will speak to Nineline about making the VR section more visible or at least having a redirect so it can be seen easier. thanks

Guys, some are here for the gaming, some are here fore the simulation, some are here for a mix of both, and yet others come here because they want to learn more about missiles and it interests them. Ignoring someone is your choice, which you are free to do, making them feel not welcome however is not a choice and in itself isn't welcome here. Please be so kind and keep that in mind. @tavarish palkovnik feel free to continue your quest, ofc some will be more open to engage with you, others less, don't take it personal. Everyone, please remain kind to each other. Thank you.

Just an update, this is indeed planned for the future. Thanks.

The product is not finished which means there are more items and features to be added, Lantirn that we had all along is gonna get renamed to, imagine that, Lantirn, and because Lantirn didn't have TV mode back then it is gonna be removed so we have more accurate representation of the pod in use. So you will have all this except TV. They sill didn't say which Lantirn are we getting that means we don't know if its gonna be 40 years old, how did you get that assumption? furthermore Sniper XR is gonna be added after Early Access. So if you look at all the facts: - We get accurate representation of the pod in question, not a mashup of 2 pods. - Later on we get SniperXR, a modern pod. - No point in bringing Litening when there is almost no info on it. - ED is trying to give us the best representation of the F-16 that they can, and they are correcting stuff that has been implemented wrong (which is even more work) which is, in my opinion, very good, and I'm thankful for it. So basically you are complaining that they are being too accurate in their representation. You'd rather fly an imaginary plane like Jeff? which is a mashup of 3 blocks, as you said. (I have no idea, I don't fly it) So fly it, if you like to be in a fantasy jet.

nullnullnull

В новой заметке о разработке модуля рассмотрим систему запуска мотора на самолёте Ла-7. Интересная особенность данной системы заключается в использовании сжатого воздуха в качестве энергии для стартёра. Сжатый воздух подаётся либо от аэродромного источника, либо от бортового баллона пневмосистемы. Важнейший агрегат системы – пусковой насос ПН-1, представляющий собой распылитель топливовоздушной смеси, этакий мини-карбюратор мотора на этапе запуска. Сперва вручную подачами плунжера заполняется пусковая камера этого «карбюратора». Далее открывается вентиль, и сжатый воздух, проходя пусковую камеру, раскручивает мотор до оборотов 50-60 об/мин и подаёт распылённую смесь непосредственно в цилиндры. Остаётся подать зажигание и поддержать запуск подкачкой давления основного топлива с помощью альвейера. Здесь, как говорится, лучше один раз увидеть, чем сто раз услышать. Запуск мотора наглядно продемонстрирован в нашем первом видео о модуле:

Nope, you could have the game for the first time and just hop in the lancaster, not dependant on anything After a couple of hours work, the fuselage has been rebuilt, still awaiting a canopy but ive got exams coming up that I should really start revising for Good to see that our model lines up with the technical drawings though

It is not correct to say that turbulence in DCS works only with wind. Yes, setting the wind speed sets a small amount of turbulence that allows to fly in relatively comfort conditions. But the turbulence itself can be set independently. In this case plane acceleration can jump very severe. For example, if the dispersion of g-load is 0.3 and more, pilots describe it as "very strong", so it's possible in DCS have the same dispersion, especially at lower altitudes, because the size of turbulence (correlation range) increases with altitude that leads to decreasing "bumps". If you want to encounter turbulence at higher altitudes you need to set wind speed in the layers quite different (speed and/or direction). These are a sample how DCS turbulence works, and what is correlation length or range. Please keep in mind, that the turbulence in DCS is not a function of time affecting a plane, it is SPATIAL function that means that the planes flying in close formation will be affected by the similar (correlated) vectors (but not identical) depending on the correlation length. And, by the way, it's not static - hovering helicopter will be bumping as well. null null null

thank you all for your patience and feedback

Fastest way around atm is load into a SP instant action and then go back to MP

Just started happening with the latest 2.8.4.39313 patch. When multiplayer is selected from the main screen the multiplayer screen loads and server list populates. When selecting Map drop down nothing changes, when selecting exit or close window x in upper right corner nothing happens. When selecting Join nothing happens. Selecting servers on the list seems normal and they do highlight. I did patch tonight and then fly in multiplayer for a bit then shutdown and came back a little over an hour later to this issue. No crash log is available and only way to kill DCS is via task manager.

Thanks! I'm going to update all the Swedish assets in the near future. There are a lot of smaller stuff that needs updating. Regarding the AMRAAM-ER, I will run it by Admiral General Aladeen to ensure the correct level of pointiness.

Yes, please! I would love to add this as an option. A-10 Warthog To Soon Carry 16 Small Diameter Bombs In Combat

Because we can't trust DCS AI in the art of ammo conservation. It has a tendency to blow its load in seconds. And burst fire CIWS are definitely a thing.

most reports I am getting now is it is working again. This is a short term fix and we have a long term fix coming. thank you

please retest now and let me know the results

Please turn it on because MT I believe is here to stay. Brought a lot of performance uplift. Ryzen 5 5600: RTX 3070: 32g Ram: Virpil Cm3 Throttle :Thrustmaster warthog flight stick: Thrustmaster TFRP rudder:Samsung Odyssey plus Vr headset :

Now you're really making desperate excuses to be angry at Open Beta for whatever personal reasons. Fine, it's your right to do so, but solving the situation is not as difficult as you pretend it is. Years ago, when I used to have both installed on my PC by the way (not anymore - using OB only nowadays), I just copied the whole Saved Games [...] folder content from one DCS to the other and it just worked. So much for the "complicated". Occasionally a couple of controls had to be re-assigned if OB had new aircraft functions compared to older stable, but you had to do exactly the same thing anyway when stable got updated, only a little later. You're long enough on these forums to know that by doing the stable -> OB conversion via dcs_updater you keep all your controls, settings, missions, campaign progress etc. Conversion is just changing the build number, exactly as it would look if stable got updated today to 2.8.4. And if you don't like it, you can always revert back, I think it's the only flight sim currently on the market that allows us to do so. You say you've made backups, and that's always a great idea. You've got nothing to loose then apart from some time for downloading about 50-60 gigs of data. Still preobably less time than you spend here arguing and making the problem bigger than it really is. Granted, some of the backed-up custom mods from Saved Games probably won't work in 2.8.4 and you'll need to search for their updates, but again, it's the same thing when stable gets updated and breaks various mods.

Yes, we know that there is such a possibility, the ED team has made a technology that allows you to do this (I could be wrong). It would be good to explore such a possibility and do so. We are interested in this, I will once again clarify this with the ED. It would be cool to change the period, for example, 1973 and Sinai would look completely different, I like it.. make sense

Spitfire landing, with just a bit of power ON. Sorry no sound, Varjo recording does not record sound.

This may be the only time in history something has polled at 95% in agreement... Not even 95% of people like ham.

Then you had to fly P-51 at extremes low power. According to maintenance manual opening and closing temperatures For Coolant and oil radiator shutter are as follows. Coolant: opening temp 115c-118C, closing 102C-105C Oil: opening 85C-87C, closing 71C-73C You won't see coolant radiator shutters being open until coolant temp reaches at least 115C-118C and oil radiator shutter open until oil reaches at least 85C-87C Since ED introduced new/upgraded cooling system in warbirds i fly P-51 100% time in auto exactly the same as every P-51's manual say to do. I just did some testing, my conclusion is that oil/radiator shutter doors in Auto works exactly as per manual. I can clearly see that shutters won't open until opening temp is reached and once they open they stays open until closing temp is reached. This thermostat hysteresis may lead to different coolant and oil temps at exact same condition, it is very noticeable with oil temp, it is quite hard to reach oil temp 85C-87C but if you push enough power oil radiator shutter will open and then when you reduce power oil radiator shutter won't close until low 71C which is also quite hard to cool oil that much so depending what you've done before you may fly with closed or a little bit open oil radiator shutter with oil temp high like 84C or low oil temp like 74C at exact same speed and power. Only explanation that on your end shutters seem not working is that you have them in manual mode not in Auto mode.

Hi everyone. I've finally finished building my prototype and it's now fully functional, so I want to share the build process with the community for anyone to build it as well. Here's how the prototype ended up looking like (there are still just a couple of finishing touches left, like the knobs, but it's already fully functional): I've created a website where anyone will be able to see the materials I used and follow step by step instructions to build their own: https://srsosio.wixsite.com/ah-64d-tedac Since this was a prototype and I was changing some things on the run, I didn't document the process yet. There are also some missing STLs in the Thingiverse link that I will be adding soon too. I've purchased more components that will arrive in a few days, so I can fully and properly document the process, so the site is still under construction. But if anyone can't wait for that and want to start building their own, we can use this thread and I will guide you through as much as I can. I hope you enjoy this process as much as I did, and you can play CPG in a more realistic and immersive way.

It's literally where the Strike Eagle made a name for itself. Looking forward to an Iran campaign, but there inevitable needs to be a Desert Storm campaign and also a no-fly zone campaign. Always loved the "Iraq '93" campaign from MicroProse's F-15 Strike Eagle III. Also, if Israeli variants are going to be released, would like the Syria map to be expanded to southern Israel/Gaza also.

With his compliments! Enjoy! Up-dated link below. He has done a outstanding job! A big Merci to Dimi for his kind permissions!

I get very busy so apologies, lots of people tag me but I am just one person. I have checked our internal reports, there is one for SRGB however I have no news to share at this time. thank you

Also mentioned in the article is the fact that only a test squadron is using it. Additionally, it's not the same A-10 that we currently have.

please retry now, we may have a work around thanks still having issues, we continue to work on it

We have no plans to move away from vr, it was just a reshuffle of hardware related threads. thanks

Just checked and MPdcs.log screen is still freezing the game. Log attached.

Seems to be working, thank you for the speedy response!

I have my firewall set to block certain countries, including Russia and China, so that clients can't complete outbound traffic. This is intentional, in case a computer gets infected and wants to dial home to a command and control node. I had no issues about 24 hours ago, and this just started today. I haven't had any issues previously in DCS. For example, I was on different US and EU servers in the last few months and there were never problems, nor any problems with the browser. My firewall determines the countries of IPs and blocks them. For example 27.191.71.143 is in China, as is 36.150.108.238 and 1.117.207.19. As far as that part is concerned, this is fine, if the computer can't connect to those servers. What happens is that the browser starts to populate for the first time and then becomes unresponsive. Not every server in permitted regions load either. It seems that the browser list downloads part of it and then stalls forever. I click either Exit or the X at the top, but nothing happens. If I click the refresh button, nothing happens either. I restarted DCS a few times and the issue seemed to go away, but it was still broken. The only was to get out of DCS each time was to use Task Manager, as the program would not do anything I clicked on. The only way I can proceed with using the game is disabling my geoblocking firewall rules.w

I am just overseas at the moment, I will try as you request when I return. Simon.

Yeah I found it concerning as well, ridiculous that they moved it to where it is here now. All the work they have done to help improve VR and now treating at least the VR forum like a red headed step child. DCS is a shining star for VR and I hope it stays that way. Without VR my DCS days would be over. ED jumped on the VR train relatively early and I was so glad to see them do it, just hope their commitment to it remains unchanged. I can tell already the daily activity on the VR forum has dropped off since moving it here.

All in all, we will be waiting for the Mig-21 upgrade for a long time to come. And seeing how rarely anything was done on it, the new modules from this studio I look without optimism.

Great! Pointiness and precision is important in missile design.

There it is boys, effective infantry insertions are back on the menu!

my opinion: we made the map faster than it should have been) Everything is going according to plan, we have slightly improved the map, added more new airfields, etc. Many things have been improved during this time based on review .. Wait for the official news. Stil work in progress, but Sinai map will be soon... (we are hope))

no it was reduced from 2 weeks to just 14 days

Во времена WW II в ясную погоду противники обнаруживали друг друга в 70% случаев на расстоянии 4-5 км. У меня монитор 27 дюймов с разрешением 1440p, я не могу обнаружить истребитель времён WW II на таком расстоянии. При дефолтном зуме (при нажитии Enter) на таком расстоянии контакты слишком плохо видно, а при использовании зума слишком узкое поле зрения, в этом случае я должен точно знать, где искать. С ярлыками невозможно добиться реалистичной видимости, т.к. они просвечивают сквозь объекты, не учитывают освещённость и т.д. Получается, на своём среднем железе я не могу получить реалистичную видимость и должен идти покупать 80 дюймовый 8К экран и RTX 4090. Ваша задача, в том числе с помощью костылей, обеспечить реалистичную видимость на широком спектре железа, а не только для 5% избранных с топовым железом.

Affirm I did thanks ;)

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.

It has come to my attention that some people consider stage 2 of the Viggen's afterburner to be lagom. That's a very Swedish opinion to have, but it is also wrong and offensive to me and I will fight you about it. So, let's talk about afterburners. Many aircraft have them. They are useful, since in aircraft of the Viggen's era they tend to give about a 50 to 60% increase in thrust over what's available at full military power (to be clear, I'm talking nominal static thrust here), and in some cases reaching up to a 70% increase over dry thrust, and things like the MiG-21's emergency afterburner can go up to 75% if I'm not mistaken. Now, on dry thrust the AJ(S)37 is slightly underpowered compared to its contemporaries, especially the twin engined ones like the F-111 and the F-4. It has a max takeoff weight (MTOW) of just under 19 tons, while the RM8A has a nominal dry static thrust of 65.6 kN, which means around 3.5 kilonewtons per ton. In other words, that's a thrust to weight ratio of about 0.35:1, where the contemporaries tended to approach 0.4 and had a bigger payload margin to boot. But what about the afterburner? Yes... The Viggen's afterburner, on the ground, at a standstill in a test rig, tops out at a nominal thrust of 115.6 kN, which is a 76% increase over max dry thrust, and unlike on the MiG-21 which reaches this neighborhood only while on a rapidly ticking overheating clock, the Viggen's afterburner will stay at this throttle level for as long as you have fuel to feed it (which, granted, isn't very long, but we'll get there). It doesn't stop there, though. Let us look at a thrust (and thrust to drag) chart, because everyone loves charts, right? Standard atmospheric conditions (ISA), at sea level. On the vertical axis here, we have thrust in kilonewtons - if you don't speak metric, 10 kN is 2248 lbf, or approximately the force required to lift one metric ton at sea level. On the horizontal axis, Mach number. The afterburner stages are the shaded areas labeled zon 1, 2 and 3, with max dry thrust being the black line that follows the bottom of stage 1. The curved black lines marked 1-4 are total drag in level flight with four different external stores loadout "templates" where 1 is lightest/least draggy (drop tank plus something light/small like AIM-9's) and 4 is heaviest/most draggy (16x120kg bombs plus drop tank, basically). Similarly, the line marked R is total drag with a clean aircraft. Where those lines cross a particular thrust setting, that's where the equilibrium airspeed for that loadout and thrust setting is - in order words, that's the speed where the aircraft won't accelerate further because thrust pushing you forward is balanced out by the drag holding you back. Now, a jet engine works according to the principles of Newton's third law, or the conservation of momentum. It takes in air, accelerates it and shoots it out the back, and the equal and opposite reaction pushes it forward (a jet engine was called a "rea(ktions)motor" or "reaction engine" in Swedish in the 1940's and 50's). As your airspeed increases, the relative velocity of the air you're shooting out behind you decreases, and so we see what's happening in the bottom of the chart, at dry thrust and min zone 1: by the time we're up to Mach 0.55 (distance-economical airspeed at sea level), dry thrust in the real aircraft is down to under 50 kN from the 65 we had at a standstill in the test rig. In the transonic region (Mach 0.9 and above), dry thrust - and thrust in zone 1 afterburner - starts dropping sharply. However, in the upper part of the chart, there's something else going on. Recall that the RM8A is based on an early 1960's airliner turbofan that powered things like the DC-9, Boeing 727, and early 737's. That means it has a relatively high bypass ratio for a fighter engine, very close to 1:1, which in turn means that the afterburner has a lot of cold, fresh air to burn and accelerate. The faster you go, the more air it has to work with, and the more thrust it produces. From the chart we can see that in zone 1, as airspeed grows, this is just enough to outweigh the loss of thrust from the regular engine. In zone 2, the added thrust from the afterburner grows faster than the dry thrust drops, and total thrust now increases slightly with airspeed. In zone 3, though, and especially at max zone 3, that's where the fun begins. At sea level and max zone 3, increasing your airspeed by 0.1 Mach also increases your total thrust by ~5-7% throughout the entire speed envelope. The test rig maximum of 115kN is passed at around Mach 0.52, and at Mach 0.9 you're up to around 145 kN, which is over three times the dry thrust you'd have at that airspeed. Remember that figure of a typical increase of 50-70% over dry thrust? That was a in the test rig on the ground, so the numbers aren't really comparable, but it's still amusing to note that max zone 2 gets you 70% over dry thrust at Mach 0.5. Max zone 3 in that situation is like adding another afterburner on top of the regular afterburner, because max zone 3 gives you another 60 percentage points, topping out at 130% over dry thrust at that same Mach number. All of this comes at the price of massive fuel consumption, of course (over 15% of internal fuel per minute is easily achievable), but now I'm finally starting to get to the point. I've seen some people limit themselves to zone 2, presumably because they think that this will save them fuel. In many cases this simply isn't true. Yes, zones 1 and 2 use less fuel per minute, but you gotta ask yourself why you're throttling up. A lot of the time, it's simply because "I want to go faster". Well, zone 3 also wants you to go faster, as indicated by the fact that it gives you more fun (thrust) the faster you go, and if you are nice to the aircraft she will also be nice to you. Let's have a look at an acceleration chart: Standard atmospheric conditions, sea level, loadout in group 3 (roughly speaking, four rocket pods and a drop tank), full fuel minus 275 kg to account for takeoff and initial acceleration up to Mach 0.55. On the horizontal axis (way down at the bottom), Mach number. Vertically, we have three different graphs, where the lines marked "MAX SL" is max dry thrust and the other three are max afterburner zone 1/2/3 respectively. At the top, time taken to reach the given Mach number, in minutes. In the middle, fuel used, in percentage points (full internal fuel is around 100-106%). At the bottom, distance covered over the ground, in kilometers. We can tell two important things from this diagram. First, acceleration in max zone 3 is hilarious. Even with this relatively heavy loadout (and full fuel, too) you go from M 0.55 to M 0.8 in about 15 seconds. Additionally, the Mach number/time relation is almost linear all the way up to the transonic region because the thrust increases almost as fast as the drag does. Well, we already kinda knew that. Second, and more importantly, accelerating in max zone 2 is no more fuel efficient than doing it in zone 3. In fact, it rapidly becomes less fuel efficient. Zone 1 (or even max dry thrust) can be more fuel efficient if you're going slow and the desired difference in speeds is small, but if all you're thinking is "man I wish I was going faster right now", just kick it straight into max zone 3 - the shorter time needed for the acceleration outweighs the higher fuel consumption. The differences are smaller on a lightly loaded aircraft, but zone 2 is insignificantly more fuel efficient for acceleration even on a clean aircraft. On heavier aircraft or on a hot and humid day, the differences are bigger, in zone 3's favor. At higher altitudes, say 5-6km and above, max zone 3 is almost always the most fuel efficient (exception for small speed changes with light loadouts). If you reach the desired speed and want to maintain it, then you obviously throttle down, but for getting there just use max zone 3. The same thing goes for climbing, but there you also have to consider why you're climbing. If you just want to get high, right now, max zone 3 is almost always the most fuel efficient (or insignificantly less fuel efficient than the other options) and it gets you there really fast. If you want to climb because you're going to do a long ferry flight and want to take advantage of the better fuel economy per kilometer at high altitude, it's better to climb dry or in zone 1 because you'll spend about the same amount of fuel as in zone 3 but also cover a long distance while doing it. The exception to this rule is takeoff, where zone 2 is generally a good compromise between thrust and fuel consumption, except with very heavy loadouts. Well, as long as you have runway to spare, that is... tl;dr: zone 1 is useful for making noise and keeping formation at high subsonic speeds, zone 2 is rarely useful, zone 3 is the FARA zone