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

Hey Guys there has been a change of plans. I have been putting off creating the USS Fitzgerald DDG-62 for far too long now. It's a mod I'm passionate about creating because I commissioned and served five years aboard her. Half of the time-consuming modeling part has been completed which is the weapons. Once I complete animating the 96 missile cells she will be close to adding to DCS. It's a big project so I will take my time to make sure everything is created properly. With that said I will be creating all three Flight Classes. One technique we use in 3DS Max modeling is called Import/merge. It's copying all the weapons from one mod to another but the good thing about it is all the animations of those weapons are transferred as well. Without having to re-animate all the weapons again. So once FITZ is complete I will import/merge the weapons to the other two Flight Classes. As mentioned before it's easy to get distracted while working on one mod so I will continue to work on the Lewis Puller as well but my main focus will be to complete the USS Fitzgerald. I will do what I can when I'm able to do it. My ailments slow me down sometimes so I will not push myself too hard on this. It will be worth the wait!!! Thanks for your patience and support!!

Конечно, DCS только для успешных состоявшихся людей, который могут позволить себе 80" 8К экран и каждые 2 года покупать топовое железо для 8К. Ишь чего захотели холопы, LODы вам увеличивать или контакты делать жирнее. Для начала достигните чего-то в жизни, а потом уже вякайте про видимость.

The customer isn't always right. But when 95% of your customers are trying to tell you something, it's usually good to at least listen. This has made 1440p a FAR more playable experience. It's not perfect, but it's a big improvement imo.

У меня хороший монитор с разрешением в 4к и топовое железо. Ну на сколько это возможно. i9 10 поколения, 64 гига оперативки карта amd 7900xt. Так вот. Контакты в отдалении в этом разрешении на 32 дюймовом мониторе видятся ЗНАЧИТЕЛЬНО хуже чем на любом стандартном 24 дюймовом в fullhd. Я подчёркиваю это слово. ЗНАЧИТЕЛЬНО ХУЖЕ. Услышьте вы уже наконец проблему. Ну не просто так в который раз люди поднимают этот вопрос. А ситуация у людей с ультраширокими мониторами ещё более печальная.

I will send you a message. Here one new render

In the typical use case of CCRP, the ASL will guide you to the target. If the ASL is to the side, you turn towards the ASL until the flight path vector intersects the ASL. Unfortunately, when the aircraft is upside down the ASL encourages you turn away from target, and not towards the target. When upside down, the more you deviate from a perfect target lineup, the more the ASL wants to guide you away from a good target lineup. I believe that the ASL should encourage you to steer towards the target, regardless of if the plane is upside up or upside down. Mission and Track are attached. F-16_ASL_Off.zip

Oh boy was it hard but after a looooong time trailing the tanker, bobbing up and down and side to side I managed to fully refuel the jet. In the end the following things helped the most. 1. Adjust RPM so you match exactly the tanker speed then micro-adjust accordingly when connected 2. Try not to overcompensate movements so you don't end up with PIO, small movements on the stick 3. Don't aim for the basket! aim for the wing/refuelingthingie from which the basket/fuelline extends 4. Don't give up! It took me like half an hour before I managed to connect properly Love the module Aerges! keep it coming!

The Answer: Because the Features in OB need to be properly tested and tuned before going to stable..

Посмотрел цены на мониторы с диагональю 38+. Потом прикинул ещё железок что бы этот божественный симулятор выдал хотя бы 60 кадров на таком мониторе - приемлемо ;D лучше я буду просвечиваемые метки использовать. Вот было бы здорово ещё если б эти метки работали на серверах где они принудительно отключены счастливыми обладателями сборок за пол миллиона рублей.

"The gatling gun fires 20mm ammunition at either 3,000 or 4,500 rounds-per-minute with a burst length of continuous, 60, or 100 rounds." - https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-15.htm#:~:text=The gatling gun fires 20mm,ship since the late 70's. Looks like it's correct.

Already in the making: Cheers!

now that normandy2 is released i think there can't be any better time to bring bf-109 g6(the most produced 109) than now it was present at the battle of normandy flying k4 over normandy felt always a bit out of place it's like flying dora over battle of normany it just feels awkward and not right allied have 3 new aircraft coming (hellcat,corsair,la-7) and on top of that there's recently released mosquito we need more axis planes to make the battlefiled more authentic and it would be nicer if we can have F/g8 model for fw190 so axis can have proper gorund pounding plane just like p-47 jug does

I truly cannot comprehend the mentality that dispenses with a module simply because the cockpit doesn't look quite as good as module 'x'. The Spitfire is blast to fly, the cockpit looks as good if not better than a lot of other sims out there and if you're worrying more about the texture quality of the dashboard than the 109 diving on your tail then, frankly, you're the problem; by letting your superficiality overrule your ability to immerse yourself in a game experience.

I, seriously, dont know what OP want to achieve to be honest: He complain about the lack of stable updates over the lasts months He is told that Stable its no more than the last Open Beta at the moment of the Stable is released He tells he would be happy if ED release the last Open Beta as Stable He is told that he can do whenever he want He still complain about why its not ED the one that do that Well, obviously not all Open Beta gets released as stable, in fact theres a bunch of OB released every Stable one, if ED change this way of work: If ED deprecated OB and released only Stable when they think is good enough, people will complain by the lack of updates If ED deprecated OB and released all OB versions as Stable people will complain by all the bug that gets released If ED deprecated Stable and release only OB like a game in Early Access, people will complain So now you have the option of getting the OB or Stable way, can change between both, no problem, and you are not working as free beta tester as OB is optional, if people made the OB the most used one above the Stable thats not on ED side, thats user decision as we are so impatients we want the new funtionalities asap, many games has and stable and a beta release, including that civ sim, as far as we have the option to change i think its fine. DCS its a monster with many third party modules that sometimes get broken when something is change at the core

I have updated the Flight Manual attached in the first post. We will keep working on it.

Проблема в том, что контакт вдалеке имеет размер в один пиксель. Отсюда разная видимость в зависимости от разрешения и довольно странный для 2023 года совет покупать мониторы с крупным пикселем. Надо отвязать размер контакта от размера пикселя. Типа того, как сделано в этом моде Пользователю можно дать возможность выбирать размер контакта.

Probably many of you noticed, but it is bit quiet on the forum. On YT NineLine confirmed that Spit will receive (at least) new textures and maybe some model improvements Especially cokpit looks great, it was looking bit dated in comparison to newer modules.

I know, Normandy did Ugra, Channel did ED but from user perspective we have now quite big Normandy 2.0 map and small Channel map. Two maps of the same area that could be together. So we lose space on the disk (we lose space for mesh, textures and some objects) and in addition we now have an artificial division. It's also not a good idea to create campaigns that instead of being on one map are on two separate ones. It doesn't make sense from the user's point of view. The bigger problem is that the map of Normandy could easily include a more detailed area of the Channel map (after all, this area is on Normandy 2), but it doesn't because the "owner" of this part of the land is ED. Managing both maps separately is also more difficult, and Ugra showed with Normandy 2 that it is able to perfectly prepare an older map and combine it into a new one. However, maybe one of the companies would buy a map from the other and make one nice and full map? It colud be Normandy 3.0 . I don't think anyone needs convincing.

@SharpeXB Male Bovine Excrement. The point of Open Beta is that ED cannot possibly account for: the vast array of hardware and software combinations out there in use by the community and that can have a direct effect on the game’s stability the almost impossible to replicate way we interface with DCS in terms of mission design, weapons/systems employment, trigger combinations and the gamut of edge of envelope flight model excursions that we as users en masse will execute. It has happened before, though it has been a while, where a serious game breaking bug has been introduced in Open Beta and the community at large has been glad of a Stable version to fall back on; admittedly that has meant that for the owners of module(s) affected it means losing out on a new toy or feature temporarily but generally for a short period and that most of the rest of your consumer base has not had their entertainment shafted by a bit of errant code. Ultimately you have a choice to opt in to Open Beta - if you do so for the “new toys! Gimme gimme!!!” without acknowledging the possible caveats then that’s your own damn fault. If you choose to opt out because you don’t want the risk then be aware that you may wait a while as ED want to square away as much as possible before committing to a Stable release branch - you have no leverage in that process as it’s their software and their decision. Want to sway that decision? Then get on the board or start buying significant shareholder stick cos otherwise you’re farting at the wind. And if you think they are being deliberately obtuse by holding out on porting the Beta to Stable then that says more about you than ED; they will be only too aware of the Stable only user base hanging on for an update and probably have damn good reason to hold back that you aren’t entitled to know about.

Sounds like you are using the updated Normandy 1 map, not the Normandy 2. Normandy 1 had low res buildings in the new areas, wheras Normandy 2 has all high res buildings and textures.

Taz legend.... There should be some kind of program for people like you that help improve ED and developers modules... If not paying you, at the very least providing you with everything (hw and sw) required for what you do. Man, I know you do this without any economic objective, but you are improving the value of ED and the developers, and they should see this. Just my 0.02

Yes, we can notice the huge and effective effort that you have put in the map in a very short period of time ! ... Which makes me wonder if you were asked (or forced) to slow down because you are making all other developers look bad If this map was released Q1 2023 (as you initially announced) it would have been unprecedented. I do not remember any developer releasing either a map or module on time.

SA map is not available for trial. I talked with Razbam on if there's way I can help but don't think it's possible. They did say it'll be available for trial "soon" so we'll see.

No, none of what you said is accurate sorry.

No, but I will ask if this is something maybe we can have.

I'll assume that's not a rhetorical question. Disclaimer: I do not work for DCS. I do work for a software company, though. QA is a nightmare, and the more complex the software the more nightmarish it becomes. Then consider our friend Bill Gates, who found out *nix (there's more than one flavor) uses something called linked libraries, and the guy who wrote the NT kernel, who until MS hired him from DEC wrote VMS, which is why the underlying OS is (still) case insensitive. The upshot to that paragraph is every installation of windows is a little different. When you install software you also install DLLs, linked libraries. That means my Windows is different than yours is different than the one five feet away that I game on that's different than the laptop a few inches away I work on. Now write a piece of complex software, and DCS is a beast, that's designed to run on that quagmire of an operating system. There is simply no possible way for them to replicate every possible permutation of Windows versions, DLLs, motherboards, memory , video driver versions, sound drivers, mice, keyboards, monitors, usb devices...the possible combinations are close enough to infinite. It can't be done. So, write software, run it though in-house QA to get the low hanging fruit. Hand it off to the closed beta team and see what they find. There's more of them, more permutations, and they'll find even more problems. Then open beta. No idea how many users, but orders of magnitude more than closed beta. More permutations. I absolutely promise the open beta users do things with the software that nobody else has done before...mission designs, scripts, flying spitfires through the wires of the tower bridge (I'm looking at you SevenLine)... Once they think they have most of the problems solved and the bug reports are down to a dull roar cross their fingers and release as a stable version. It still has bugs, guaranteed, but they hope the most egregious have been resolved. The open beta version, which is buggy, also has the latest and greatest. Some people think that's enough to overlook some inconveniences while ED works on problems. Others do not. Hence the 'stable' version. It's a choice. Lots o' bugs and lots of shiny newness, or less bugs and less newness. It's all about what is more enjoyable for the player. You can even pick both, if you want.

Was I the only person actually looking forward to LANTIRN? Hopefully a proper LANTIRN does indeed come later. Sometimes it's refreshing to have kit with limitations and quirks to work around. Also.....are the reference docs absolutely clear that SNIPER has Auto Maverick Handoff....'cos that could be a capability you loose. LANTIRN has a specific hardware 'Missile Boresight Correlator' for this purpose.

I'd like to add KC-10 too.

If you guys read the rather large update we posted, you would have noticed a link I included at the bottom: https://dcs.silver.ru/Diagram/F14B Remember this is not a HB affiliated website, just something a DCS user made that I find interesting. There are other aircraft on the webpage and the last tested DCS version is somewhat older, but do what you want with this information. There appear to be some discrepancies in certain aircraft. Admittedly, the F-14 was one of them until I could fine tune it. The difference between being way off the numbers and really close can be miniscule at times. It would be unrealistic to expect every DCS aircraft to be perfect across the whole envelope. Tuning any flight model requires a great deal of knowledge and experience, as well as immense amounts of time. If the testing methodology is sound, everyone could answer their own questions with hard numbers.

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

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))

I'm afraid I have to disagree. UGRA's customer service is appalling and there are many issues with the Syria map just lying around unresolved despite user pressure. It's been well over a year since we had a - long promised by UGRA - update on that map. They still haven't got the kneeboard working in Syria, for goodness sake!

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

Cage is there.....but no uncage?

I don't think giving away a module is entirely up to Razbam as I'm sure the revenue goes to both Razbam and ED. I just thought there would be temporary license for beta testers but I guess not. I'd purchase it if it was little less but $56 is price of a whole game and I'm not that interested in South Atlantic. I actually haven't played any real mission on Syria yet either. Plus I don't even have drive space for all the terrains. I will have to uninstall Syria to install SA.

Same, for historic and pop-cultural reasons, but I rarely fly it these days because - honestly - it looks pretty dated compared to the Mosquito and P-47. Especially on the inside. Details, colors and so on. I would love ED to do a visual makeover on the older models - but I do see the difficulties with that. But if the Spit is overhauled, that gives me a glimpse of hope for all the others too!

Ok, Thank you. I have an idea about Razbam, I'll back with info to you if I'll recive something. Btw. map is nice and I like it. Map SA has some problem with trees, I don't know if it's because there is a lot of variety or it's a matter of size. When I fly in VR on other maps, even without reprojection, I have 90 frames everywhere (or near ), and here above the ground it jerks like hell, and I'm talking about the area where there are only trees (forests), nothing more.

Because that's actually wrong. Latest stable isn't the last-but one Open Beta. People don't want to truly understand how Stable and Open Beta works, that's up to them. It's not a difficult concept really and it's being explained. People just don't like it so they choose not to understand it I guess. I can only guess you're just trying to win an argument rather than trying to find a solution to your perceived problem. Either that, or you like complaining about nonsense. There is no problem that you have raised that there hasn't been simple solutions that meet your needs. For some reason you seem to be obsessed at whether the game installed on your PC is tagged 'Open Beta' or 'Stable'. You don't care if it's stable enough for Stable. You have stated you just want the current version of Open Beta to be called Stable now, and even though you can have everything you want - (except a title change) -because ED generously gives us many options. You appeared worried about what ED calls the build you want to run on, and nothing more. At the end, that's as far as your concern really seems to go and honestly - it's getting very tiring - especially for those of us who have taken time out to try and help you to understand what you can do - just to later realise this appears to be more closer akin to trolling than it does having a genuine need and we've wasted our time. I too am waiting for stable to be promoted, and at times I find myself getting impatient. The difference is though - I understand the concept an appreciate ED giving us the choice. For us that do get the concept of Open Beta vs Stable releases, and appreciate having a stable release that is promoted less often - I say "leave it as it is". Everyone at the moment has a choice. All your asking for is choices to be taken away from some other people to suit your ideals more. That's it. I primarily choose to use OB for testing, stable for real flights. If I had access to CB, I'd probably use that for testing - because I understand the concept of BETA being a test environment. I don't have CB access but appreciate that I have OB access before it's promoted to Stable... for testing. I get, and appreciate the difference between the two. Otherwise if people really don't see the need for 2 versions, their is a very simple solution. Get rid of Open Beta. Only allow the public access to Stable. Make them wait longer. Only allow people access to Beta that understand the concept clearly and are willing to participate in a BETA program as testers - instead of those who think BETA means 'quicker access - not a test release'. Honestly - I think that solution would suck - as I'm for people having options to choose for themselves. Not being forced to do what someone else wants.

Sooo, in flight simulator, we are now catering to MUH CAPABILITIES crowd even though its not based on real data and its totally fictional. NICE.

I think this was discussed here:

I deleted stable ages ago. Complete waste of drive space. Personally I've never seen a bug I couldn't ignore. There are hangers full of aircraft to fly if one of them has a lose turbine blade, or maintenance needs to replace a carb. There's a virtually unlimited cornucopia of options, and at no point in the last however many years I've played this have I ever been even inconvenienced by the lack of polish. At one time I used to point out the bugs, but Wags cured me of that. Less stressful to park the problem and fly something else for a while. Sometimes I do that even when there wasn't a problem to park! YMMV, of course. IDSFES.

Maybe a slightly different approach can help: 1. have a menu item in communications-->other "Send xxxx request" players are expected to have tuned to the correct freq when they are ready, and only to send the request when ready The menu item sets a flag that activates a formerly inactive unit that then starts to transmit the message on the indicated frequency Now, above approach is fraught with potential issues: no guarantee that player is tuned in correctly, no easy repeats (unless you resort to scripting), not multiplayer friendly. But maybe a workable stop-gap. The upside is that since you are responding to an exact flag event, you can easily accompany the transmission with a text transcript.

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:

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.

please can we get an uncage command and toggle like the P 51