Leaderboard

What? You've got it all wrong! Here:

Strange comment after we just released arguably the biggest core improvement in years with Multithreading. Not sure what else we can do to show we are trying to improve the core for the better. We have submitted the mod for review, we have received the first version that includes some aspects of the mod plus additional variables. I submitted the reflection mod for review and suggestions on how to add to the sim, and am waiting on a response to that as well. Thanks.

RAZBAM Mig-23 develop pic

Lots of WIP!! Trial and error. Hmm, I wonder if Chat can create

Please don't use the term "nerf", this isn't WOW. Read this and educate yourself instead: https://heatblur.se/fmupdate

I started looking and looking for information about the second world war, there is not much information, except for what is on the Internet (Wikipedia was my main source). I found some pictures, but this does not give a complete picture of the fighting. I also found maps, on this source, of course there are not many of them, but at least like this: https://www.oldmapsonline.org/en/Al_Qahirah#bbox=30.65074010712502,29.340328798767274,32.1770948325,30.51534107021223&q=&date_from=1960&date_to=1980&scale_from=&scale_to= I did not find: - what the airfields looked like (but their location can be found, i mean Egypt side) - shelter objects - Israeli airfields - etc.. any thoughts? please advise

Official cold start vid is out which is also encouraging!

The previous brakes didn't need to provide much brake torque, as there was so much rolling resistance it was as if the brakes were being applied at all times. Now that rolling resistance is much lower, we have to crank the max brake torque back up. This issue was discovered just after the submit deadline for the last patch. They'll be able to hold Zone 1 AB in the next patch.

To quote the oft-cited paper directly: It's not lost on me that the paper is dated. However, the concepts and data presented in it are still sound. For some reason, people have it in their head that the provided solutions can only be applied literally with no changes at all. They can be changed! Other community members have improved on the formulae set down in the original paper, and these formulae can always be tweaked to taste and for the average modern display. Frankly I find it baffling that this is a controversial viewpoint. DCS and its staff maintain the unique position in the genre and industry of essentially ignoring this issue for many, many years, with the only respite being the briefly lived impostor era. They were an imperfect (though entirely fixable) solution that was tried but then quickly removed for reasons that to this day have never been made clear. Their removal was never even mentioned in the patch notes. As small as it is, I am thankful that for the first time since then, ED seems to be acknowledging that there might be a problem. I am nervous about whatever they might consider a solution, especially given the extremely opinionated comments of a prominent and lead developer of the sim. Either way, I am looking forward to seeing (or not) the results of whatever work is in progress.

A couple of 'possibly fictional' Liveries for the Type 26 - 4 x UK, 1 x RAN, 1 x RCN - British names are known, Pennant Numbers are yet to be divulged officially so I'm going with Wikiwatsit for now F88, F89, F90, F91 !!!, Australia is suggesting HMAS Hunter 101, Canada has not even committed to a purchase yet so I have taken a guess at HMCS Thunder Bay F344. Deck marking etc are based on the current style for each country, the actual markings are not known yet, HMS Glasgow isnt in service and hasnt had her deck painted yet. So it's a lot of guesswork. Link deleted - see below for new link.

I find it very encouraging to hear you say that (and of course now it makes me want to buy Sinai even more!!!). Although I'm not saying that other vendors under ED's umbrella fail to meet their responsibilities, it sometimes feels that some of them fail in their responsibility to keep their customers informed. In case I did not say that earlier: I find OnReTech's communication to be very good, head and shoulders above the competition. I feel engaged, and I thank you for that.

There are many factors that determine whether to launch a pre-order or not. A lot of things are related to Steam, because Steam has tightened the pre-order rules. We offered to pre-order the first phase of the project, but you need to be sure that you will complete the rest of the phases on time. This is a big responsibility to users.

You obviously never did any in depth testing of how the visuals in DCS work, if you think that it's more difficult to spot with your view zoomed out. It's a demonstrable fact that being completely zoomed out increases your visibility range versus an air target. Try it on a monitor. I don't know why it's that way, but it is. The issues with objects appearing and disappearing dependant on zoom has been reported forever and nothing has been done. Why would I bother adding to the reports ? You obviously take the opinion that if everything is right for you, then it's automatically right for everyone else.

I don't personally trust the track system for data collection but if you have a use for it, so be it. They aren't the most stable hovers but they're good enough due to how the torque model works. If you need better hovers, I'm sure you have professionals that can do it better than I can. 7500lbs 2ft,5ft,OGE Hover.trk 8500lbs 2ft,5ft,OGE Hover.trk 9500lbs 2ft,5ft,OGE Hover.trk 12000lbs 2ft,5ft Hover.trk 13500lbs 2ft Hover.trk And I'll do one even better. Huey Test 15C 29.92inHg.miz Here is the mission used to run the tests. ANYONE who wants to run these tests to double check me, feel free. There is a trigger to adjust the internal cargo of the huey in kg to achieve the desired weights. The mission defaults to a weight of just over 6500lbs via fuel alone. For weights over those which fuel alone can reach, maximum fuel should bring the aircraft to a total weight of 7438lbs, take whatever your desired weight is, subtract 7438 from it, convert it to kg. then apply it to the trigger. There is no wind and it is at a temperature of 15C and pressure of 29.92inHg (it is unsure if DCS is accurate enough to model 29.921255347142inHg but the difference should be negligable) These are ISA conditions, the exact same conditions used for the IRL huey performance profiling. In short, the only relevant variables are the pilot, and the performance of the aircraft.

In modern conflicts, new weapons often run out and the country gets old stocks. Or a modern army collides with a backward army. It would be interesting to see such Cold War artifacts as Tochka-U, P-40 Radar and Redut Antiship missile systrm. Some of them were widely exported and in service nowadays.

Thank you, @NineLine, that would help a lot! The reflection issue to me kills the usability of at least the Hip, Huey and Tiger (some, more but those are my current favorite airframes where I noticed that they have become unusuable) because depending on how the sun hits the glass, it becomes opaque: There's no way I can land the Hip with that, nor fly it reliably. Same for Huey and Tiger. The bug is well known and documented for some years now, and it is shared with other modules. We know where it originates and where it can be fixed: in the glass shader (heck I even wrote a small hlsl patch myself, it's not that difficult). So if I may offer a suggestion: Put a "reflection strength" slider from 0.0 to 1.0 into the general (global) options screen. Have the glass shader read that setting and apply it to the reflection (a simple multiplication) for all glass, and this issue goes away - for all modules. Of course, if ED gets around to fixing the individual modules, that would be even more appreciated. So thanks again @NineLine for taking this up! -ch

I have done a full profiling of the hover performance, and will compile the results into the main post. It's not even close.

To be fair - trying to see 2 sides here... the change that has been made has only been made so far on the BETA version of DCS... so there is still time for ED to consider community feedback on this issue (which is what OB are normally about) - and apply the best option for the stable release to come. However I agree that it's concerning that the response so far seem to be focused on a single issue (ie, the dots) and not the greater problem. ED has made a fantastic product, and I appreciate it's existence. For me - it's the only reason I have a 'gaming machine'. Passionate community members have added to this product to make it even better still. However in saying that - the above quote is IMO an underrated comment - and I think is deserving of a bit more attention. I would really like to encourage ED to have a slight change in mindset to consider with more weight what contributing community members are doing and how the changes ED does affects them - because for people to take so much time and effort into creating these and distributing them means that these are no small details that should easily be overlooked. There will always be the entitled, where what ED does is never enough - and will always find something to whine about. I'm sympathetic to NL and BN who really wear the brunt of this. But I'm talking about ignoring the noisiest to consider the bigger issue here & those who have put serious time and consideration into finding solutions that improve DCS for so many others - which the above poster has touched on and I'd like to elaborate further. Things such as optimized textures (Taz) that as literally saved numerous VR users from abandoning DCS, the new upcoming Mission Editor with some basic features people have requested for years, the Data Catridge Mod, Dots, as well as things such as Simple Slot Blocker, DMSC/Simple Save Groups, etc that make possible the severs we enjoy today. People have been waiting on these features, optimizations or improvements for a time significant enough that mods have been developed by users to fill these holes because there's no small need for them and there was no sign of these being looked at on the horizon, and it really hurts when ED undervalue the contributions made. Are we asking too much too soon of ED? I don't know. I'm sure ED dev's aren't sitting there twiddling their thumbs doing little... and that's where these community mod's really help everyone. It helps to give ED some breathing space in some areas, and give the community some solutions. But being involved with server management, mission designing, script designing, etc and working with others in this I can honestly say that there is a real feeling of frustration and even despair by a number in the community as to whether ED even appreciates the contributions made or would prefer if we gave up and just let DCS be what it is on it's own. The situation leading up to RuroniJones's all but abandoning Overlordbot has raised to the surface what a number have been feeling behind the scenes and we now are at a point where an incredible feature for MP servers is now being abandoned due to the lack of appreciation and support from ED, and I know he is not alone. I don't make this post to bash ED or to find fault. Rather I am sympathetic to problems I can only imagine that ED are facing and my desire is for the community to worth with them instead of finding blame. Going through COVID and now the current global situation - it's not great at all - and ED are still putting out great modules with more on the way, the final implementation of multi-threading is here, Vulcan being developed on, etc. I am very appreciative of the work that ED is doing. I acknowledge that it's very much likely that in a similar way that the community feels underappreciated by ED that some in ED may feel just as underappreciated by the community, which brings me to my main point: I just can't help but feel that DCS is being held back by a certain level of separation of understanding between them and the community that supports them as to what really matters to a lot of their customer base, and is underestimating the benefit of supporting those that support ED during these times or how the changes ED makes impacts them. My plea would be for ED to reconsider with more weight the needs of the content creators that support them. (And I don't mean youtube 'content creators'- I mean real content - those actually contributing to the development of DCS freely with their own time and what holes are currently being filled by community). I'm not sure what more we can do our end but plea. RJ approached ED, and then as requested - took the time to consult many of the leading dev community as to what is important and provide information directly back to the top (to Kate) and then waited patiently... for 2 years.... for nothing. I'm not sure where to go to from here? It would be very timely for ED to show a greater level of support at the moment for the community dev's to ease some concern and bring some focus to these matters. I would suggest how this particular issue of IC is addressed is going speak a lot louder than many probably realise in the community as to ED's broader attitude towards the community - whether things are changing, or whether they remain the same. I would really like to encourage ED reach out to RJ to see if some of this damage can be undone and see if the relationship between the dev community and ED can be improved. This would be no small gesture. Likewise my encouragement for the issue here (which is not just about dots but is about more community contributors having their work 'shut out' and underappreciated by ED) would be considered in it's entirety.

Showcase of the new Polychop's SA342 Gazelle Update. (Flight model, armament modularity, Athos sight, Tablet...) https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1826316181

I am looking into the clear glass thing, but realistically, this shouldn't be a mod but a user option like it is on some modules.

StopGaps V.1.1.1 - 20240318 (now filters 'from runway' clients) We all know the feeling: design a really nice mission with many player aircraft options, only to have the air base look like a desert diner: mostly empty. A few years ago, @Hardcard created a fantastic script to do away with the emptiness (and, admittedly, mission performance): SWAPR. I've used SWAPR and love the idea. So it is with great humility and a deep bow to Hardcard that I present 'StopGaps': It's a light-weight re-imagination of Hardcard's idea that replaces all player planes with their static equivalents until a player jumps into them. After players leave their plane, it is returned to the parking position. StopGap is small, and does not require any configuration or naming scheme: all player planes are automatically supported, including their liveries. Like anything DCS, there are a couple of rules or recommendations to observe DOWNLOAD (please click here) - ED User Files RULES & RECOMMENDATIONS StopGaps works best with single-unit player groups, although player groups with more than one aircraft (be they AI or player) are supported ALWAYS use 'From Ground Hot/Cold' for player aircraft. Using "From Ramp" or "From Parking" does not provide stopGap with enough information to work well. Remember to NOT place "From Ground" starting aircraft inside bunkers that can close their doors. A bug in DCS will not open the doors when a player enters the aircraft. Carrier/Assault ship slots are not supported StopGaps fully supports Multiplayer [Note: requires a tiny 'stopGapGUI' script installed only on the server, see 'Known Issues', below] ADDITIONAL FEATURES StopGap automatically integrates with SSB (Simple Slot Block) if that is installed: a blocked slot will not show a static aircraft. This allows you to create conquerable airfields with automatically blocked slots where only the correct faction's aircraft appear (see DML or SSBClient for a drop-in script for that). You can selectively exclude player units from stopGap by appending "-sg" to the unit's or group's name. Example: "Vandal -sg", blank is not required. This group is not stopGapped in single- and multi-player appending "-sp" to the unit's or group's name. Example "Axe-sp". This group isn't stopGapped in single-player, but will be stop-gapped in multiplayer. This is useful for maps where in single-player, aircraft (usually placed outside of airfields) fall to the ground, but works well in multiplayer, where the superior server-based synching through stopGapGUI resolves this DCS bug (this happened a lot in my "Sinai Tourist" map, and this new option comes in handy). Since stopGapGUI is only available in MP, you can opt to exclude stopGap only when the mission runs in single-player. Requires stopGapGUI 1.0.1 or above. should you want a "stopGapped" mission to run on a server long-term and dial up the eye cany even further, you can change line 9 in the script stopGap.refreshInterval = -1 to a positive value like "3600". That will refresh all stand-in statics every 3600 seconds (= 1 hour) to remove accumulated destruction amongst the static replacements. By default, this is disabled (refreshInterval is set to a value smaller than 1). [Please note: the DML version of stopGap provides more elegant trigger zones to designate -sp and -sg aereas so you do not have to mess around with ungainly naming schemes, and of course allows for much better configuration handling from within Mission Editor.] "SITTING DUCKS" COMPANION MODULE The sittingDucks script extends stopGap's abilities to automatically block a player slot if the stand-in static was destroyed. This allows for scenarios where players must defend their airfield to keep access to player planes, and where it can be strategically advantageous to attack enemy airfields to deny those players access their most important aircraft. KNOWN ISSUES (Only Multiplayer): to resolve a server/client synchronization issue, the server must run the 'stopGapGUI' script. You know that you need the server script if your freshly spawned aircraft is broken or falls from some height upon spawning in Multiplayer. INSTRUCTIONS Copy / paste the "StopGap" script to a DOSCRIPT ACTION at MISSION START (For Multiplayer, install the "StopGapGUI" script (only on server) in the "Hooks" directory) and re-start DCS You are done. Enclosed is the "Caucasus Hangar" demo mission that puts (I hope) all currently playable DCS modules on display at Kobuleti. If you own it, you can enter it. If you don't own it, you can at least ogle at it. Mission (please see below) Note: A more capable version of StopGap is part of DML. This is the stand-alone version. Enjoy, -ch Caucasus Hangar StopGap.miz

if they make me wait another 2 months while youtube plays around, im gonna be pissed.

Nice! I love the cargo ship flotilla!

The tablet can be disabled in the mission editor. We're well aware of users wanting older variants

Right now, I'm pushing for June-ish. Was trying to get it out in May, but a few things require additional cleansing and tweaking. I am travelling for work right now, so available time to code is minimal.

Unless they release it by the end of the week/month, they all have it so early that it feels like mockery. It's mainly the videos of people like GS playing around in it. If they were dry tutorial videos, I'd feel different. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If I didn't get the extra discount for pre-ordering I wouldn't after seeing it.

Folks please treat everyone with respect. The team are testing a spotting tweak at the moment, when we have news we will let you all know. thanks

Yes, S/B out is standard. And yes, the tanks were essentially bolted on for all practical purposes. The only time I ever saw jets without them was at the RAG during training.

This is honestly my biggest issue with the entire dot mechanic. Your monitor resolution has a direct impact on your visual distance of an object. Once an object can no longer be rendered because of your monitors pixel density, they switch to the dot to compensate. That transition period between the dot an model though, the object just seems to vanish. Then you spend the next few minutes zooming out to find the dot, then zooming in to find the model. I don't know what the fix is to be honest, but the way the dot works now is not ideal. If I could force the basic black "label dots" that were occluded by geometry, distance and clouds I would be happy though.

So.... just got my Quest Pro and had a quick test in DCS.... And it's definitly an upgrade from my G2. Have not done much tuning except from setting it to 1,5x resolution in the app. Can probably push it further, but will test with msaa as well. Reprojection is much better then I had on my G2. No wobbly text/artifacts on the Apache MPD's. Have not tested just running 45 FPS without ASW yet. Colours are nicer, and I actually noticed the bright reflections from the CPG's radioscreen when the sun hit it. Never had that with my G2. Comfort is better, feel more relaxed using it. No need to stare down in the mpd's just to get the sweetspot right so you can actually read stuff there, now I can just have a quick glance with my eyes . Will test more later today with some nightflying, to test how the blacklevels are in this headset. Overall happy with the upgrade.

Вроде когда-то давно поднимался вопрос, но заглох. Подскажите, пожалуйста, планируется ли донастроить обжатие стоек и пневматиков, коэффициенты трения для колес? Если сравнить положение на земле вертолет бота и вертолет игрока, то у бота обжатие выглядит корректно, а у модели игрока стойки и пневматики как-будто перекачаны и не обжаты до стояночного положения. Еще вопрос, это нормально, что вертолет разворачивает на земле вправо при минимальном шаге, если не компенсировать педалями? Передняя стойка при этом никуда не разворачивается, а визуально просто скользит, как будто не хватает силы трения и вертолет не весит больше 10 тонн. Особенно это заметно после посадки, когда баки почти пустые. Да и при нажатии на тормоза больше чем на треть при рулежке на нулевом шаге вертолет идет юзом и скользит влево. Хотя читал, что для рулежки даже рекомендуют поднимать шаг до 3-5 град.

You should add an inspirational quote to your signature block about taking initiative, then start a livery thread and contribute to it, instead of complaining about the fact that someone else hasn't done something you see the need for.

Doesn't matter. Most mods simply overwrite default files. As long as the mods overwrite different files, order doesn't matter. If two mods overwrite same default files, then you have conflict and you need to figure out the order. Mod managers should tell you if mods conflict.

I don't know if this was posted before. But the narrator for this I believe is General Dynamics F-16 test/program pilot Neil Anderson. While the jet is not a Block 50, Anderson none the less talks about 9G's and the duration the pilot could possibly be experiencing them in a turn.

@cfrag I wish you better luck and more success than I had with SWAPR This aspect of DCS is a can of worms. Will try to study your script in the future, perhaps this summer I'll have time. Congrats. @Adalla Ah, collision issues in MP... they drove me nuts when I was developing SWAPR. I experimented with different events (because some of them didn't trigger in MP), I ended up having to write a dedicated server hook, which seemed to do the trick. But even then, some people kept reporting collision issues in certain situations, never found the cause of those (but then again, I'm no scripting expert). Like I said, this aspect of DCS is a can of worms, issues keep appearing with DCS updates. ED might decide to change event IDs, some necessary scripting functions might stop working, replacements might start spawning incorrectly (suspended in the air instead of touching the ground, etc.). I hope @cfrag is able to deal with the worms that keep crawling out of this can

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.

I'd encourage everyone to use it. I flew the Tomcat in the early 2000's - before transitioning to Supers. The Tomcat (at least the B/D models) are well overpowered, and DLC was useful in making fine adjustments in glideslope without having to reset power. Basically we flew in a slightly overpowered condition and "bumped" down DLC to keep the jet on glidepath. In a pinch (e.g. low at the ramp) DLC up could also save the day. This was a feature that was sorely missed when we transitioned to the Super Hornet. I know it's not specifically asked, but I'd also recommend landing with the speedbrakes extended and for extra drag, land with the external tanks. Even during CQ, we'd fly with empty tanks just to get some more drag on the jet. Boarding rates were notably lower with slick jets apparently as even just a very minor power addition was enough to cause the jet to float over the wires.

And use the new one for something like the AH-1G Cobra? The old flight model was about perfect for a flight sim... 99.9% of anyone that flies this doesn't know how a "real Huey" reacts, all I know is mast bump is WAY too ungodly easy to do now and I need to reduce collective to get the nose down when at higher speeds or otherwise it climbs.... And yes, my cyclic is pushed 100% forward and I still have to reduce collective to dump my nose down. Please please please scrap this flight model (where the Huey is concerned) and go back to the old one.

I you feel that way, then I can’t understand why you haven’t moved on to a different flight sim. On my case I’m pretty happy with the improvements we have had recently, like the multi core support, the XR VR, the clouds, the draw objects on the mission editor, the improved night lighting, etc.

dont know why this is tagged as "missing trackfile" this issue is now sufficiently reported..

Righty, they are all in my Amazon basket ordered now except From the Cockpit which might need a bit more looking for than a quick Amazon search. Thanks very much

Then may I suggest you work on your tone. Perhaps instead of "So just stories?", you can type "Awesome. Thanks for the insight. Anyone know of any datapoints that can corroborate these anecdotes?" Comes across much less... prickly.

@Thinder I'm not opposing anything you wrote, but I think you mixed together two things. a) Is the "computing" performance which is very much depending on how good and fast memory is connected to/ can be adressed by the CPU. Everything you wrote is correct in this regard afaik. b) How much data can be cached in the memory before the application needs to read from the drives. I think this is where the (marginal) profits from 64 GB RAM in DCS come from. Fewer reads from harddrives/ssds. I think this is mostly unrelated to a). However. As I said, I'm not really a believer that 64 GB over 32 GB in DCS is such a big deal (in most cases). And the most likely causes for stutters is to find somewhere else.

Just got my Warthog HOTAS today, and holy bejevus is it heavy. No matter how heavy you think it's going to be, it's heavier. A huge difference between this and my T16000 flightstick. Four or five times as much force required to move it. Not used to it yet but I can see how it would grow on you. And I love all the buttons on the stick, but its going to take a while to figure out where to put everything. The throttle is smooooth and everything feels solid, but it's a big change from the TWCS throttle - which I really like - so more confusion with the switches. For the moment I'm using both throttles, and I'll try to see how to map the Warthog Throttle to somewhat mimic the TWCS. I might end up using both because the F-15E is going to be my focus and many buttons and switches will be required. As far as tech-toys go, these are very nice. Here's the kicker: I didn't order the throttle. I only ordered the flightsick which was about $100 off. And that's all I paid for. But Amazon sent me the whole kit by mistake. Bastards! Now I have to listen to that annoying voice in my head and contact Amazon and figure it out. Now that I have it obviously I want to keep it, but I'm going to try and get a deal. Sending it back will be a pain, they'll have to pay, there's no box just for the throttle, and then they have to sell it used. And it was their mistake in the first place. I'm going to try for 50% off and see what happens.

Thanks for the in depth info A more graphical rep for those like me who can't read...

I have done another performance test, and will compile the graph into the main post. Our huey is generating too much lift at high power settings. This is likely because the drag of the module is so high that to try and improve the accuracy of the speed vs torque metric, the amount of lift generated per horsepower was cranked up. However when doing the rate of climb test, you fly at 60knots TAS, where drag is not much of a factor, just lift. Really, you should just be able to match the rate of climb performance to the real thing by adjusting lift per torque, and then adjusting drag to make the speed vs torque metric more accurate. However I'm not a developer, and have only been researching this aircraft's real performance for a year. You guys have worked with it for a decade, I'm sure you know more than I do. To do this test yourself, create a mission with no wind, and set the weather to 15C 29.92inHg Then on a huey, remove the external hardpoints, add the IR suppressor, max out the fuel, and then with a mission trigger, add 119kg of internal cargo to match the 7700lbs test weight. Then fly the huey at 60knots true airspeed at different torque settings.

Razbam MiG-23MLA

Im sick of hearing about what is and isn't 'fair' in MP, mostly it's used in a " won't somebody please think of the children " way to justify a set of conditions that make no sense when you think about them properly.