Leaderboard

Razbam MiG-23MLA

B-21 Stealth Bomber 1.0.0 released! Changelog Version 1.0.0 Release version Big shout-out to @EA-18G_BlockII for donating the B-21 3d model!

You are very much correct. But I got excited, here's the list of which weapons will be included in the release version 1.0.0. AGM-154C JSOW (8) AGM-158B JASSM-ER (8) AGM-158C LRASM (8) CBU-103 WCMD CEM (18) CBU-105 WCMD SFM (18) CBU-87 CEM (18) CBU-97 SFM (18) GBU-28 Penetrator (4) GBU-31 JDAM (8) GBU-31 Penetrator JDAM (8) GBU-38 JDAM (40) GBU-57 MOP (1) Mk-82 GP (40) Mk-84 GP (8)

BLUF: The AGM-114L Longbow HELLFIRE is an extremely advanced and capable missile, but is limited by the skill of the crew utilizing it. Preface: The AGM-114L is an active radar guided missile, containing its own radar and inertial system, with the same warhead and motor as an AGM-114K. It is fire and forget, with no input or data links after launch. It can be cued with the TADS, FCR, or RFHO. However, it has a number of limitations that must be understood in order to maximize the weapon's effectiveness. It is not a perfect, flawless, Macross Missile Massacre, kill-all-16-tanks at once, infallible missile. Knowing when and where to use the AGM-114L is an important skill for any aspiring AH-64 crew. The AGM-114L goes into a standby mode at aircraft powerup. This standby mode is largely irrelevant in the context of DCS, but incorporates a number of PBIT features, environmental data, positional data, and other important information. When fully loaded into the standby mode, the missile will be indicated with an S. It remains in this state until the missiles are actioned and given appropriate target data, where they will shift into prelaunch mode. Appropriate target data must be from the correct source, which is limited to the FCR, TADS, or RFHO (Radio Frequency HandOver). Target points, INS coordinates, or other mechanisms are not appropriate sources, as these do not have all the necessary data required for the missile. This data includes a different reference mechanism for the missile (it is not GPS guided nor MGRS/LL referenced), angular target rate, and other important information. Postlaunch occurs after the firing command has been given. This process encompasses all the necessary steps, mostly automatic, that result in the missile launching and heading toward the target. The missile will automatically select LOBL or LOAL modes depending on the nature of the target. Moving targets will almost always attempt LOBL, while stationary targets are generally LOAL. LOBL is the longest range mode due to the nature of moving targets, and will be utilized when targets are moving or attempted when the range is less than 2.5km. Even though LOAL might be indicated <2.5km, the missile will immediately go to terminal acquisition after launch. Beware that when doing so, the missile may not go for the target you specifically want: the missile at this range can grab the first target it finds, which could be closer or further than your intended target. Utilizing the LOBL INHIBIT function can assist with hitting a target closer to a predicted position as opposed to the closest moving target to the position. A DBS trajectory will not occur at ranges less than 2.5km as the distance is too short for effective DBS. Beyond this range, DBS is utilized on stationary targets. DBS may also occur if a moving target stops mid-flight, but only if the range is greater than 2.5km. The trajectory of the missile is based upon the range to the target, where the maximum range will yield a maximum altitude of 3km. DBS trajectories can displace laterally by up to 1km. There are three possible ways to provide targets to the AGM-114L: FCR, TADS, or RFHO. The FCR and TADS are the only self-designation options for the AGM-114L. The FCR is the only one to provide primary and secondary targets to the missile, and at that will only do so if the primary target is stationary. TADS and RFHO are the only ones capable of engaging stationary targets at maximum range. Currently, TADS is the only mechanism available, and thus can only be utilized by the CPG. To use it, the CPG must sight select TADS, at which point the "TYPE" field on the WPN page becomes disbarred, allowing RF to be selected (if SAL missiles are also loaded). Current best practices are to utilize the LMC to align the TADS on target, followed by IAT to track it. A steady lase is required for three seconds to properly pass target data to a missile and failure to do this can result in erratic target data. Hold the laser as long as possible to maximize accuracy. Do not wait long after the target data has been passed to fire, because the greater the time delay, the greater the error in target position. If you're expecting to be able to lase, then hide, do not expect the missile to hit exactly what you're aiming at. Acquire and fire as rapidly as possible. This will be vital when the RFHO arrives, as it too is vulnerable to data errors over time. Plan, assign, and engage rapidly. When launching a missile, keep in mind the relative bearing of the target to the missile's centerline. If the target is to the left of the missile, a DBS profile can cause it to shift right, vice versa if the target is right. The clearer the picture the missile has, the better its overall accuracy. That means you might need to shift the aircraft left or right to present the missile with the best view. Further, if utilizing LOAL and DBS, you can launch missiles that approach from different directions by altering the heading to ensure a left or right trajectory. The closer to the missile's centerline, the more random it may be. Within DCS, after launch the missile immediately gives track warnings, so if the target has a RWR, it is likely to know about your missile. The missile has extremely limited energy potential, so targets with high agility (ie fighter jets) have a much narrower engagement envelope. However, nobody likes the rapid "deedle" of an active-radar homing missile on their RWR, so even a long range shot can alter a potential threat's decision matrix, and the AGM-114L is extremely hard to notch. Helicopters are more vulnerable and they must take significant evasive maneuvers to defeat the missile. Moving targets, while easily tracked with moving target mode, present some additional difficulties. Currently, DCS ground vehicle behavior defaults to dispersion when a unit is hit from the air. In a mobile convoy, this means that after your first missile is shot, if you have any others in flight, they may not track the right target. This is due to a variance in predicted target position at launch versus actual position. The missile is likely to grab the target closest to predicted position, not actual position, so keep this in mind if engaging mobile units. This can also apply to static units that disperse after a hit. If absolute precision is required and a target must be destroyed, then a SAL missile should be the primary tool utilized to destroy it. Remote engagements are far more flexible with SAL missiles, with greater options for masking and targeting. RF missiles are in their element when used against large columns of units where all must be destroyed in a rapid fashion, regardless of order. They should also be the preferred weapon against rotary wing threats and aerial threats, though with the understanding that the more aware the threat is, the less likely the chance of a successful hit.

I will ask the team if they are ready to share more news about Marianas WWII, production is still in full swing and they are working hard, hopefully we can share something soon. thanks

Although I'm not having any trouble waiting for the Mudhen (currently life won't really allow me to play DCS much anyways), it somehow still does pain me a bit to see YT videos from content creators that, judging by their videos, obviously didn't even take the time to watch the preview instruction videos from Notso... Admittedly, those particular content creators might attract potential buyers with a different playstyle than me.

We have watched the same videos and have been in touch with both. We are investigating as there is a conflict with the available performance charts for the Block 50. Both former F-16 pilots flew the Block 30 and not the Block 50, and the Block 50 is much more heavy aircraft that MAY explain it. Again, we are investigating and seek to make the most accurate simulation possible. thank you

We're a captive audience to the only show in town. It's curious though, the hype mixed with the seeming disinterest on the part of the sellers towards the buyers. All kinds of colourful "You want it! You want now!" followed by either silence or a curt 'You'll get it when you get it." I'll buy it of course, like everyone else. I just hope RazBam isn't looking for kisses and affection once it's out. I think it's been made abundantly clear: This is just business. Cold and hard.

Guys, you're being trolled. You can't reason a troll and you're just wasting time. Your responses are just feeding more of the same. To ignore - move your mouse and hover (don't click) over the name to the left of the post. A dialog will appear which you can click an IGNORE button. As for the IC check - I believe this might also destroys all Taz's wonderful work that allows many in VR to get the performance they need with optimized textures, etc, so I really hope that ED's response to this isn't just to fix the 'dot' visibility.

Iranian MiG-29s By Kerbo Hello all, I've recently been working on a few Iranian liveries for the MiG-29A using @2IAE-CrashBG's upgraded Normals. Part of this includes accurate hand made weathering and roughmets according to a specific aircraft's serial number. So far I have done two aircraft, #3-6118, and #3-6108. those represent a tan/blue camo, and a grey/blue camo. so far 3-6118 has been published on the userfiles (link below). while 3-6108 is still work in progress. Images below: 3-6108: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3331846/ 3-6118: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3330739/

We desperately need more objects for SAM-Sites, both fortifications (command bunkers, prefabricated concrete berms and walls, improvised dirt berms, prefabricated raised positions for radar, or improvised raised positions). Additionaly more static utilities to give the bigger SAMs a larger visual foodprint and generally a more realistic appearance... Ideally we would also have placeable ground decals with tiremarks and "roughed up" ground to make those sites of activity look more realistic when placed on otherwise pristine grassland/fields...

null

Like Don said this is (partially) about the "quad views" support (being able to render in 2 passes with 2 different resolutions and a moving viewport) being a Varjo feature (the "official" name of it is "XR_VARJO_quad_views"). This is a completely different technique than the one used in OpenXR Toolkit or VR perfkit, and it cannot just be "forced in" like OpenXR Toolkit FFR/DFR, it requires some fundations in the game engine which ED built. However they seem to not have finished it: a) there is a major bug in their frame management with MT (reported to them) b) they never actually enabled the DFR capability aka "XR_VARJO_foveated_rendering". This is why you need a separate tool, my "OpenXR-Varjo-Foveated" to fix a) and add the missing bits for b). Regarding other headsets support, this is in theory achievable: the OpenXR extensions mentioned above, while published by Varjo, are free of any intellectual property and can be implemented on any OpenXR platform. For example, I've added support for them into my Pimax OpenXR runtime, and they work today on older Pimax products with the add-on eye tracking module, and they _should_ work on Pimax Crystal once they release firmware with the eye tracker support. For other headsets like Quest Pro, they are some significant barriers that Meta is putting in the way (of _any developer really_): - Their eye tracking support is targeted for Avatars only (that thing that none of us gamers care about). Remember, it's the Quest "Pro" as in "Enterprise". It requires additional support efforts to be usable for something like foveated rendering. - Their eye tracker functionality is currently gated by "developer mode", a mode of the device that is unfriendly to end-users, and activating such mode has many bugs (this is why even today with OpenXR Toolkit support for DFR in some games, many users still cannot use it due to these developer mode issues). - Their compositor doesn't support a feature called "FOV mutable", which is critical in writing quad views emulation code, specifically to implement a smaller moving view port for the foveated region. Writing code to simulate that feature is complex. - The Quest Pro isn't that high-end and high resolution. In the end, because the resolution is only a fraction of what it is on Varjo, then it means the gains will also only be a fraction of the gains on Varjo. In the end the decision is a no brainer: unfriendly usage, need of significant code to fill the gaps left by Meta, and estimated too small gains make it not worth my time, for a device that is clearly not intended for gaming usage in the first place. For comparison: I considered adding support for G2 Omnicept, because at least the eye tracker works out of the box and WMR supports FOV mutable. However the lower pixel count and low adoption of this device also make it not worth my time. A comparison worth it: the initial implementation of quad views support in PimaxXR took only 2 days, and it's already showing gains comparable to what we see on Aero (and I dont even have a Pimax device with eye tracker)... my support had built-in equivalent of what my OpenXR-Varjo-Foveated mod does (the thing we asked Varjo on their Discord to offer - aka a checkbox to force use of the eye tracker with quad views even if the app isn't asking for it), so the separate program isn't even needed with Pimax. I think the Varjo implementation in their runtime will still be more polished than mine in Pimax, simply because it look like they have done some work to optimize it for their optics (something I don't really have the time/skills to do myself). Don't use force_varjo_VR and just let the game use OpenXR instead.

Уважаемые разработчики, хотелось бы генератор погоды. Не в смысле погодный движок, а так чтобы можно было в миссии выбрать случайную погоду. (свойственную времени года) и программа создавала много разнообразных вариантов включая и облака, температуру и прочее - сразу. Ну то есть как есть уже сейчас, но сейчас нет генерации облаков и количество "прессетов" не велико. А хотелось бы например выбрав Осень, одним нажатием кнопки "случайная" на выходе в мисси получить уникальную осеннюю погоду со своими облаками, температурой, ветром и прочим. А если еще можно было, так автоматически случайно менять погоду при каждом запуске одной и той же миссии - это вообще была бы песня. Спасибо.

Something bothered me is why ED restrict the mod while they don't have the fix (yet). Give us a fix or solution first then restrict the mod.

I hoped latest dcs update from yesterday made this mod unnecessary.... No cigar. These mods keep being GOLD and MANDATORY for everyone in VR. Period. Thank you Taz.

fully agree. It pisses me to no end to have paid for the module MONTHS ago, and now seeing content creators videos with what is obviously a very playable version while I have to wait. its F-14 all over again. Early access means just that. I fully understand those willing to wait for a more finished versions. but the sooner the better for ME..

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.

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.

Dear all, In today's Open Beta update, a few additional control options were added that were not listed in the changelog. As we continue to improve the behavior of the TADS, specifically when using Linear Motion Compensation (LMC), we've added a few additional input commands and an additional option under the Special tab. Four new input commands have been added to the TEDAC right handgrip category to allow the Manual Track (MAN TRK) controller to be moved diagonally to adjust the pitch and yaw of the TADS turret with a single input. For players that are using an 8-way hat switch to control the TADS slew inputs, these four additional commands will allow you use all 8 direction positions of the switch. In addition to the new commands above, a slider has been added to the AH-64D options under the Special tab for those users using 4-way or 8-way hat switches to control the TADS slew. When applying a slew input using a hat switch, the MAN TRK controller on the right handgrip will increase in magnitude as the input is held, allowing a short tap to make a small magnitude slew input, and a continuous press to make a large magnitude slew input. By adjusting this slider, you can control the rate that the MAN TRK input magnitude increases, or "ramps up", to further fine-tune your input device as you prefer.

This bug is related to the bug with flanker DL, introduced with MT introduction. All airports disappear and even cycling through the selected airport does not help. Attached is the TRK-file demonstrating the issue in all NAV modes. @Flappie@BIGNEWY@BlackPixxel@PVNK@plasma1945 Bug-NAV-Server_1_Operation_Urban_Thunder_V7.4.5-20230520-225219.trk

This mods worked perfect before todays patch (now it doesn't pass integrity) Why ED?? at least integrate a solution for users with hi-res that cant spot anything... https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3330454/ (improved dot rendering)

I had reasonable expectation of delays based on previous experiences. we have exceeded that. especially now that youtubers are playing around with it. oh and btw, I do and say whatever I want. You do you, and im glad YOU are happy with the current situation.-

@Callsign JoNay, you meant Aircraft gross weight, right?

He has almost half a million subscriptors ... do you really believe that he has time to answer every query he receives? .. that kind of support is what this Forum is for, not a YT channel.

I beg you, do not change the API of SD10, they are already excellent missiles now, they do not need this API, which is often very stupid and does bull<profanity>

Ahh man , I love the clear canopy mod.. not to make it perfectly clear but just to dull down the overdone baked on scratches and things ( av8b is one of the worst offenders). I like it to still look like there’s a canopy there but just a newer canopy lol I mean if you want a clear canopy that passes IC, just take off with the canopy open it’ll be more clear than its ever been ( I personally would rather have all these aircraft textures factory fresh and not used and abused). In some cases such as the av8b I can see an “unfair advantage” as its canopy is very difficult to see out of at certain viewing and lighting angles, but you’re not really hunting air targets and dogfighting in a harrier either( most people). And for pve, no one probably cares one bit anyway. I also use helios and export all sorts of viewports and I really don’t care to fly without it, so I fly servers that don’t care. There’s plenty of servers that don’t have strict IC

Hey @Barthek, I have spent almost 4 hours today in Normandy with your mod. I cannot believe this is DCS. Normandy map now looks like MSFS scenery. Wonderful tuning. You should really touch Nevada too. Just like you did with Caucasus. Better quality and better color tone. Normandy now with your textures is the best looking map in DCS. Great work! Thanks

Remember kids, having a more user friendly canopy in your flight sim is exactly the same as taking steroids, or using something I've never heard of to cheat in a sport that only Americans care about. Just Say No

Уважаемые разработчики! Не знаю какими словами вам выразить благодарность за введение многопоточности. На моем компе средней конфигурации я теперь наслаждаюсь полетом с практически максимальными настройками с 60 фпс даже над городами Нормандии. Это просто сказка!

>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.

Longshot Strike Eagle video

Updated the flight manual in the first post.

Breathe, Brother Pipe. Breathe.

My mother thanks you, @Badger633

At the moment having ECM on or off has absolutely no effect on AWACS or EWR systems. They identify and locate aircraft as if the ECM is not there. Would be nice if they could also be degraded by ECM.

I'm a big fan of GR, I just wish they would get back into in-depth tutorials. They're almost acting like they're not allowed to make them anymore but that can't be the case.

Thankfully I do normally bail out, hence I haven't found out exactly why she keeps that jerry can of paraffin nearby.

Hi Currenthill, just another thank you for the B-21. I'm really looking forward to using the B-21 in the Simulator! Thanks for all your hard work, you have brought so much life to DCS World! Hi Currenthill, just another thank you for the B-21. I'm really looking forward to using the B-21 in the Simulator! Thanks for all your hard work, you have brought so much life to DCS World!

still waiting for the Phantom version of this video...

Pt. 2 now live! Download links now in first post!

I flew gliders and light planes. They possessed no special glass. I never noted such problem. If something made me blind - It was the sun. Sure there are some reflexes, but nothing so sick as in DCS. I flew Pirat glider - his canopy was 20 year old - I never saw such blinding milk spoiled on canopy. And even if - they're on the sun side. Not the other. I never saw a single video / photo / or personally a plane with such bad visibility as we have in DCS

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.

After pressing ESCAPE you will find an option to show all messages of the mission.

Then shall we ask for ED to have the FW190A8 turn like a Spitfire, instead of lurching from one accelerated stall to the next, pulled by it's asthmatic but indestructible engine ? that's hardly fair. Or maybe the Spitfire should get the A8's armament, which shreds anything the pilot can get in front of him ( fat chance of that ) with one mighty burst ? I don't want to play a game at all. That's half the problem here, gamers and the gaming mentality. As far as I'm concerned I've " won " if I get to land after a sortie.

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.

F-100D Grinelli Designs progress update https://grinnellidesigns.com/progress/

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

We have had this discussion many times here on the forum. We have no plans to move to a subscription payment model. What we have now works for us and our customers, with the free trials people can make informed choices before they buy. Thank you