Leaderboard

This is gonna hurt... 30 000 lbs of penetrating hurt.

SharpeXB, if you need to be taught how to install mods just let us know. You just have to copy and paste a folder once you figure out how to download something. Maybe the confusion from your side on this is because you think the mod installation process is some sort of hard process. 2% of the the US population still uses AOL. I would not be surprised if a non-trivial amount of those people fall into 4% anti-spotters.

Face it, the overwhelming majority disagree with you for a reason (you are wrong). Sorry we don't conform to your societal standards. There's two main reasons people use clear canopy and dots. And, the advantages they give a player are extremely minimal. a) If shadows off, the sun shines through the cockpit and hits the glass and reflects straight into your eyes b) DCS isn't smart enough to provide scaling for players on 2k/4k monitors Now because of this greatly out-of-touch decision to make this change to DCS, all that's happened with this patch is that Enigma's Cold War has disabled IC check entirely so players can keep using these mods. The end result is that the most popular PvP server is NOW MORE VULNERABLE to cheaters.

>Using settings available to everyone to downscale to 1080p not cheating >Using a mod available to everyone to make spotting at high resolutions more similar to 1080p cheating Interesting. I was curious who were the 4% of people that voted against the mod when the poll went up. I am glad that I read through this because in my mind it shows a very elementary understanding of the game and how the servers manage their communities. I really believe in numbers and I would strongly suggest that people do not lose sight of the community's position on this. 94% of players were in favour of this mod. People like SharpeXB represent the 4% yet SharpeXB has been spamming this thread. A disproportionate amount of noise is coming from their side when they represent a tiny minority. Just because there is a really loud and vocal minority does not make them relevant. There is a lot of education that needs to happen on this topic. Please keep this in mind as you read this thread.

The Buyan corvettes would be awesome, if you ever get to them. You do amazing work!!

Dear all, We needed to first block files that were being exploited. We are now working on adapting the spotting mod to suit users and server owners alike for better gameplay. I understand your frustration when something no longer works the same as it has, but we are working towards a better solution than what was available before. The same goes with the reflections, while I understand some liked to remove them completely, we need a better solution and I will be submitting that to the team as well. We already have our first version of the improved dots in an internal build and will be testing, tuning and tweaking and hopefully, we can show something soon. Thanks.

Ok. So they don't want to use them. Doesn't mean they can't, as you claimed earlier. Won't use =/= can't use. And if I go into the DCS graphics options and change my resolution, that also affects the distance I can see "dots". Does that make me a cheater too even though everyone can also change their resolution? Your definition of cheating needs refinement. Yes, it literally is available to everyone. You're changing the definition of words just so it fits your argument lol. Doesn't really lend your argument any weight. Just makes you look like you have to be right all the time.

Hey, Enoy! I created it but I wasn't happy with the model itself so I'm re-working it. Once I finish it. I will release it. All the weapons work on it and it is in-game. I will put it on my shortlist. Thanks for reminding me!

CGTC now updated and released - check the first post in this thread for details.

Nice to see the AGM-158 JASSM-ER, with it's range, the B-21 will never be within range of enemy SAMs or CAPs.

My very first thought in this regard.

Having canopy glass that you can clearly see out of is hardly an unfair advantage.

Ball call in the Tomcat no longer triggers "Tomcat, ball" but instead triggers "Hornet, ball." Only flown MT so far, but in previous MT versions (2.8.3.38090) "Tomcat, ball" was triggered properly. At some point on or after 2.8.4.38947 it stopped working correctly.

Being a new guy around here, SharpeXB looks like the resident apologist for ED. Every time there's a thread asking for a fix or a feature, he will endlessly spam the discussion with arguments about why it can't or shouldn't be done. Tiring really.

I have got lately the same problem, nothing helped. I did update Windows and it was the solution for me. It might be helpful tip for someone who face it.

Wobble on start-up is gone with the latest OB patch. Finally! And it took only two and a half years.

We already have our first version internally of the improved dot mod built into the sim and ready for testing. It shouldn't be long. If you need a break to go play something else, then you are welcome to do it. We are working hard to always improve the sim, and will continue to do so. Thanks.

And what do we do with people who set their resolution to 800x600 or similar to gain an advantage?

Some dirt, scratches etc. on the canopy glass seems reasonable. However, as all objects are in focus in DCS (i.e. no depth of field), canopy imperfections become far more of a hindrance than they would be in the real world. When I get a scratch on my windscreen, I barely notice it as my eyes are focused on objects beyond the scratch. For this reason it would be nice if the canopy dirt, scratches etc. were toned down a little -- especially when checking six etc. and you're trying to look through all of them accumulated along the line of sight through the glass.

I don't mind a few scratches, but dirt should be kept to a minimum, and if we're going to have reflections, they should be dynamic. Not to mention, don't they use anti-reflective coatings on modern canopies? It's not particularly fancy tech, you can get them for a car's windshield (of course, modules from earlier eras are another story). IMO, it should be subtle, unless you get an oil leak or something that would cause the canopy to get dirty. It's poll, by the way, pool is either something you swim in, or that thing involving knocking balls into holes in a green felt table.

For the F86F Sabre fans across the DCS World... The MVP team are converting an ex-Royal Australian Air Force CAC CA27 Sabre Jet into the ultimate full fidelity DCS World Sim Pit for the Ultimate KOREA1952 Combat Experience! What started out as a journey to build a sim pit from original F86 aircraft components, vastly got out of hand and transformed into the acquisition of a genuine airframe for conversion! Each update, I will give this post a bump with one of the latest photos, for the DCS World F86F Sabre fans that don't regularly scroll the Home Cockpits section of the DCS Forums. Hope you all enjoy and look forward to chatting with fellow F86 Sabre virtual pilots along the way! You can follow the build and all the challenges we encounter on the DCS Forums at:

It needs another rework. For the points marked as "level flight impossible", I am unsure if it is realistic or not, it is very possible the real aircraft produced enough power that full forward cyclic could not maintain level flight. However data for flight over the Vne of 125knots, let alone over 50PSI is hard to come by, and usually for the UH-1H with the old blades. Overall the huey has more available power, however at low speeds the performance discrepancy is not good. You go from requiring far too much power to requiring far too little power. However, the engine profile doesn't seem to take altitude into account. As for the engine profile itself, it is still underpowered at high power settings. The new profile produces 50PSI (1158shp) at 101% N1 The real huey produces 50PSI (1158shp) at 96-98% N1 However the EGT profile has improved significantly. The hover performance is not great, however. It requires too much power at every weight. Here is a more advanced profiling of the hover performance. The new WIP fuel consumption is far better than it was, but it's still using too much fuel at higher power settings, however it is reaching what could be considered "close enough", but could still use another tweak. The rate of climb is messed up too.

Oooh - going to be a pair of F4E's at RIAT. I'll take some pictures when there in a few weeks.

Добрый вечер! Сделайте пожалуйста колодки/упоры поршням. Не у всех есть паркинг брейк и не у всех на игровых педалях стоят пружины тормозов от игрушечных механизмов. На прогреве устаёшь держать. Знаю, что многих бесит их убирать на некоторых модулях по забывчивости, но дайте хотя бы возможность ставить. Как по мне это крепко забытый элемент из реального мира.

@Flappie While the focus of Newbie62’s tracks has been the HUD cues, the ADI is obviously non-functional. Lose the HUD and you have no way to make a precision landing in IMC conditions. The pitch steering bar remains locked at the bottom of the ADI throughout. Only the bank steering bar is operative. Neither the glide slope nor course warning flags are in evidence either prior to or immediately after picking up the glide slope, though I don't know if the either should be in evidence. While flying down the glide slope only the bank steering bar is active. There is no movement from either the pitch steering bar or the glide slope deviation indicator. With 4.3 nm (8 km) remaining in the approach, both the glide slope and course warning flags suddenly appear and the ADI now provides no steering cues whatsoever. The 4.3 nm (8 km) distance is notable because this is the distance at which the ILS needles/bars in all other FC3 aircraft become active not inactive. I should add that crosswind has nothing to do with any of the above as the behavior is identical with no wind. EDITED to add TRK file demonstrating ADI/HSI behavior, in case needed. F-15C Preselected ILS Mozdok EDIT Views.trk

This is a good point. I'm searching for as much info as I possibly can get my hands on in regards to the B-21. I've seen a very broad spectrum of ideas regarding the max payload. Everything from almost the same as the B2 to about half of the B2. I'm leaning towards the latter, about 30 000 lbs of payload. What do you guys think?

Piers would be a great addition if they are added at some point. Bournemouth & Boscombe piers were breached for defensive reasons during WW2.

This mod is a clear an example of cheating as there can be. That’s obvious to everyone. Including ED apparently.

Wait, are you seriously complaining that now you have to deal with the same limitations that your opponents had/have to deal with in the past? Why don't you just play on servers which dont't have IC enabled? There everyone can use the mods they like and on IC enabled servers everyone IMHO should play vanilla version of DCS.

No I mean a milk spoiled over canopy, and dirty paintings on windshield. I don't mind reflexes. So far It looks like poor pilots tyranny: "I can't see contacts and I don't want that others do." I talk about that: It's probably not important on F-16 - they look at MFD only anyway. As we know, good WWI and WWII pilots used to approach from the sun - to surprise enemy. In DCS it's all upside down. If you came from the sun you're far better visible than if you approach enemy in the way, that HE have the sun behind him. I do that repeatedly... To make enemy blind. There's clearly something wrong here. Spitfire pilots in DCS fly with opened canopy WWI style, all the flights on Enigma PVP in MiG-21 (before windshield update) I made with canopy blown off - to have superior visibility advantage (worked quite well - and it's annoying that it does) I look for simulation not for aberration. It's about that. Green Ugly fellow.

I realized I should probably cite my sources. null You'll notice the operator's manual is not included. That is because the data within the operator's manual is derived from documents like these. The data in the operator's manual is superseded by these documents in regards to absolute performance profiling. I HIGHLY recommend reading Helicopter Drive System Load Analysis, absolute thriller. Edit: looks like I forgot one. Page 21? Absolutely R I V E T I N G.

Confirm. Shame.

I think there’s a balance. Excessive dirt and crazing doesn’t seem right, but glass that’s so clear it feels as if there’s no visual impedence feels just as wrong.

This isn't always true especially in this case. We've had entirely written from scratch escort processes that use other commands in the API. Granted they may not work well or be janky but sometimes they are actually way better than built in DCS API stuff. So it really depends.

Sorry, what I should have said was "do not make any inputs from the force trim reference point using your stick." In real-life, the cyclic would remain where it is. In DCS, when using a spring-centering stick, the assumption is you are letting it spring back to center when trimming, which means don't apply any inputs after that.

my reaction when they finally pushed this fix:

This is from 2017 ... So we are talking 5 years. So I think we can all agree that this issue has been around. But looks like there will be light at the end of the tunnel.

Number of Black Hawks produced: over 4.000 Number of Chinooks produced: about 1.200 Apart from the fact that they are very different aircraft and hardly comparable, I'd say the UH-60 is pretty well-accepted all over the world, and far from being an aircraft only pushed on other countries as military aid. It's also an icon thanks to some events in Somalia and a movie about that, so yeah, I'm with Kev2go, I expected a Black Hawk first, too - that being if ED ever decided to do another utility helicopter at all. I feared it would not happen again in DCS and thought the Huey and the Hip were only possible because that was ten years ago and some dedicated devs with a personal bond to those helicopters simply wanted them in DCS. Nowadays the DCS community has a loud group of people shouting "If it ain't shootin' and kickin' ass, I ain't buyin'!!!", which I thought would make mundane utility helicopters or even a C-130 unattractive. I'm happy that my fears did not come true.

You’re confusing the abilities of the aircraft with the conditions and rules of the game. As a simulator game it’s inevitable that the aircraft will have unequal abilities. That’s part of the challenge. DCS may not be for you if this isn’t what you expect from a game.

>> Uploaded, enjoy! << CHANGELOG: New file names: delete the old kneeboards to avoid having duplicates. All pages overhauled with a more consistent and easy-to-read design. Normandy 2.0 added. Inverted night mode added. Runway lengths added. Magvar data added to every page (more accurate and useful than the previous "true to mag" numbers). All magnetic headings re-measured for 2023 (modern maps) and 1944 (WWII maps). Added a group of pages with the true runway headings and internal airbase IDs (thanks to cfrag, Grimes, and Kanelbolle). Marked the primary runways at aerodromes that have more than one. Added remarks and graphics to denote dangerous approaches, obstacles, and runway conditions. Persian Gulf: Quasoura aerodrome added. Normandy 1944 removed from the PDFs and will soon be removed from the download. Russian-language Caucasus kneeboards removed.

Ok, so I applied this 3M stuff to the bottom of a little plywood frame that I created to give the pedals clearance from the wall. It seems to help hold the pedals still at least for now. We'll see how that holds up in the future. The white box is something I bought to hold the power strip and cords from all the PC and peripherals to keep the place looking neater, and also weighs down the plywood frame.

They could download and apply the mod, that way everyone gets to operate in a level playing field. Takes a couple of minutes. This whole thing is all about the gaming types who obsess over their kill\death ratios not wanting to give up their advantage, nothing else. They have an influence which is completely disproportionate to their tiny numbers. I'd like servers to stop tracking kill stats completely, then they might all go to somewhere like Fortnite, where they belong. If people want to keep a record of how amazing they are, then they can write it down on a piece of paper.

Yes it is if one player can do it and another can’t. Not everyone wants to use mods or knows that this one even exists. Having certain players able to adjust visibility in a way that others can’t is cheating. Plain and simple.

Well it’s not exactly fair in MP for some players to alter their graphics like that with regard to spotting etc. This should be controlled by the IC.

It's sad when you have to do things like that just to avoid the complaining. We're here to fly the most realistic versions of combat aircraft ever made, but when it gets too hard, too realistic, the crying starts. Adapt, or go fly a Hornet I'd say [emoji6] Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

@P61 Let's reconvene shall we. The fuel consumption is unacceptable. The achievable true airspeeds at different altitudes are way too high, and are unacceptable. The power requirement for hovering is unacceptable. At high power settings we still underperform fairly significantly. It is better than it was before, but 6500lbs performing like 8500lbs while within the officially stated Vne is still not acceptable.

Almost there...

Here is a sample, where a convoy deploys after reaching its last waypoint: here is a video, sorry, forgot to set the audio source