Leaderboard

Just to clarify what @chichowalker has pointed out. The E/M diagram and the general performance matches our model for the whole envelope according to our evaluation, so unless any issue is found, the performance is not going to change. What we plan on reviewing medium/long term is the behaviour of the aircraft with asymmetric payloads and the roll stability at very high AoA. Another thing we might consider is adding an option to allow non-FFB users to tweak the emulation of the effects of the force retribution system. So, all in all, it's going to stay similar to how it is now. At the end of the day, as Chicho says, it's an interceptor that can dogfight when flown to its strengths, but it will never be mopping the floor with other 3rd gens. I'm mainly saying this to avoid creating any hype about big performance increases or big FM changes, because those are not what we will be working on.

Liebe DCS-Community, heute vor 2 Jahren, also am 06.07.21 habe ich diese lockere Runde ins Leben gerufen. Mittlerweile sind wir zu einer tollen Gemeinschaft zusammengewachsen, in welcher man auf sehr lockere und ungezwungen Art DCS genießen kann . Um hier im Forum mal zu verdeutlichen, was das konkret bedeuten kann, möchte ich unseren ersten eigenen Cinematic von unserem Hobbypiloten Thorso mit allen interessierten DCS-Enthusiasten teilen. Falls euch gefällt, was ihr seht ---> neue Gesichter sind stets willkommen, einfach PN an mich

Hi Currenthill, first I would like to thank you for your effort... then I like to suggest the Iranian anti-ship missiles like the Nasr-1 or the Noor ones, those coastal anti-ship missile systems follows the same philosophy of the Shahed 136 drone launcher mounted on top of a "civilian" vehicle. Another good suggestion would be any of the Iranian indigenous medium range air defense systems like this ones: Implement those ones would be great for the Gulf and Syria maps allowing to mission makers (like me) to do more realistic scenarios.

New release is out! Releases · ygorma/DCS-Brazilian-Navy (github.com) Added working Exocet Missile, Aspide (x8 AA) Missiles and Bofors 40mm cannon (AA) to the Niterói Class ship; Added SH-60B livery; Reworked routes, runways and parkings of NAM Atlântico; Fixed Garcia d'Ávila's helideck height for AI traffic. Sorry guys, I've been flying too much.

Reading smear posts from Thinder it looks like only French guys has possession of universal true and they are the only guys that have studied aerodynamics. Well, comparing former Spanish Mirage F1 pilots experience with someone that has flown light aircraft is easy to understand his own conclusions. Please, don't make false statements to descredit Aerges amazing work. Yes, as consumer that pays your modules you have right to certain amount of things, but not everything. This is an early access module, like almost all we have in DCS, so think again in your rights. Viper FCS suffered a big overhaul last year and till that time I dont remember anybody criticizing the module so much, and IIRC, continue being EA. Apart from my job as fighter pilot, real one, I have been flying DCS a lot of years and almost all modules. Im sure that F1 FM is one of the most accurate, close to manuals and performance tables but continue in progress, like other different modules. I'm tired of repeating in forums and discord servers that there are lot of people that want Mirage F1 be something that is unreal. This module requires good pilot skills to fly it properly, good Hotas setup and know his limitations in order to exploit this machine properly. I'm sorry so much that company developing this is Spanish one, I know that for you guys this is the main problem and reason to criticize the module. I want to congratulate Aerges for his amazing work and profesionalism of people working there and I hope that they continue working this way. P.D: I would ask to moderators to ban that kind of destructive and smear posts. Enviado desde mi SM-G981B mediante Tapatalk

The F-15E is amazing - loving the back seat so much I decided to double down on some DIY gear! Project Overview: Assembly and Wiring: Some glam shots: nullnull null

Using Roughmets (that's my preference for the solution BTW). Getting the aluminum dialed in. Adding custom weathering. Prop hubs not done...a lot not done. Tires etc... Painted parts just stand in and not done.

I came here to write "me too" on noticably slower startup times since the last patch.

glad to see that the 64514 configuration is working for you. thanks for posting screenshots - always helps me

Well look at the AI models we are doing and how long they take when its mostly just art. The models themselves take an incredible amount of time. Then add in modeling of the cockpit even if nothing is clickable is still an extreme amount of work. The FMs for FC3 are also PFM in most cases and require a large amount of work and info to make correctly. All this would need to be done at a level that is expected of ED now. Now not modelling systems to the degree of a FF module would save some time, but I am not sure its as much as some might think in the grande scheme of things. Hope that makes sense.

Hello all! I've been running a YouTube channel for a few years now where I'm building up a library of tutorial content for various DCS modules. Please check it out and let me know what you think. Always looking for input from fellow sim pilots. I also do a weekly DCS News stream on this channel, Saturday evenings CET. https://www.youtube.com/deephack F-16C Playlist F/A-18C Playlist JF-17 Playlist Harrier Playlist F-14 Playlist Mirage Playlist And many many more, browse my channel for various other stuff. Thanks!!

I have done this for the upcoming Kola map, link here: https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=1kxqNMpCPxoUPY7Ti_5LOGP2ePXmnTMif I will do this for Sinai too but it will probably take a while until i’m done with it. It’s a way better way of marking locations though than doing it in DCS.

1. Scalable Window isn't an option at the moment, as many elements are hard coded to their size/dock/location, I could add a pop out console w/ a larger font size, but I wouldn't say that it would be a priority, as I have other major functions that need to be finished and debugged. the UI Window is already substantially bigger than what most users wanted (apparently people still use 1280x720p displays?). when I have time to re-configure the docking and linked edges of the controls, I may have the right side extendable and as the app window size extends past specific values, increase the font size of the console. 2. and 3. are being worked on, Like I said, I have to be careful how it's integrated to remember, and when the value is loaded as there are dozens of sub functions tied to preset switches, and if the app switches from default to another before all the functions are complete it will cause a mess in exceptions and desync. Same for when a User chooses a Preset and switches builds. It would likely be a complex system that manages the selected preset the same way it manages the preset names per builds. Same for MT Switch, If it's enabled on a build that has MT then switches to a non MT build and it remains enabled, then it would cause argument manifest and binary exceptions. It'd also be a complex system that remembers MT Button state for each build but still run the MT check and disable if the MT Binaries are not preset. They'll both be integrated, but it's not going to be a rush job, and I have a significant list of little bugs in the core functions that need to have

Very good news and hoping to post this evening/tonight if all checks out.

DCS is a "free-to-play digital battlefield game." according to the DCS page on Steam. One of the two free to play planes is not even full fidelity. This mix of fidelity is already part of the game. I hope ED decides to bake MAC into the current game and not fragment the playerbase between two games.

Improvised weapons of the sandpeople! They look intimidating. Iran has very capable scientists despite country isolation. I'm creating a model of a "scientific-industrial" object so that it can serve as a target for airstrikes. Something like a nuclear facility site. It would be nice to see these air defenses in the game, to cover the plant from an air attack.

Ditto. This, a million times. We all love detail but, there comes a point that it's unnecessary, it becomes superfluous. * looks at the silly panels details on F15E and BS3... "why??" *

The updated version of the DShK will now engage drones like the Shahed 136.

Can I just mention a few personal requests? 1) as mentioned before, it would be great to have a scalable window for the utility, as in 4K, some of the text is VERY difficult to read, especially the console. See attached, but don't know if you can tell from that on a non 4K display. 2) be good for the Multi-Threading option to NOT continuously switch back to ON when OFF was selected. The case for this is clear with the current DCS OB build and all the issues with load times, mouse lag, etc. in the MT version that many users - including myself - are experiencing. So often, I forget to set option to OFF before launching and then I have to wait for DCS to load, quit and start again. 3) be good for the utility to remember the last selected preset as well, but we have discussed that already.

Shahed 136 LM 1.2.0 released! Changelog Version 1.2.0 Removed incorrect smoke trail after booster launch Changed RCS to better reflect realistic engagement ranges DShK HMG 1.1.0 released! Changelog Version 1.1.0 Fixed traverse glitch Added capability to engage small drones

For some of us, age and health inform the length of time we have available for waiting.

Enigma, thank you for your contributions to the DCS community, your Youtube channel and MP servers; however, I disagree with the "Full Fidelity Is a Trap & It's Holding Back DCS" claim. To answer your question in the video, there exists no number of low fidelity planes that I would trade for a single high fidelity plane like the Hornet: quality over quantity all the way.

Abit dark but its a night bomber

@ThinderAerges has two real former mirage f1 pilots making test every day, one of them has 3200 hours in mirage F1 CE, EE, and M versions between 1981 to 1998 and 2004 to 2007. He was Tester Mirage F1 pilot and instructor in Mirage F1B version, The other pilot has more than 1000 hours and he was tester and instructor. Aerges has the best pilots for making this aircraft real in SIM, if both pilots are agree with Performance charts Aerges has to be happy with their job. And of course if many people can help AERGES with other suggestion it will be great.

CVN-80 "teaser" video. Hello all, Good and bad news regarding the Ford Class Carrier Mod. Bad news. Texture updates and a few other issues remain unfixed. This due to issues with the original model and new issues updating the model for player aircraft to work correctly. Good news. A new model is in the works and we believe we have fixes for the remaining issues that will be corrected with the new model. I will be posting a Beta "early access" version July 5-6th using the current model with what are mostly visual errors that do not really effect operations but are clearly not right. For example, static deck personnel/objects will spawn and "float" a few inched above the deck. A light or 2 may be on during the day and/or float next to the ship. And I think I still need to fix a backwards flag or 3 All weapons are working and AI fight deck operations work well with F-18C lot 20 F-18E/F/G Super bug and VSNF-35C. (24 planes take off-16 landing) Most carrier aircraft mods should work but maybe not at the full 24/16. Player take offs and landing do work but minor damage is caused to the ship (6-18%). I do have a working player take off-landing version but the static object "deck height bug" is much more noticeable. I will make that version available by request as there has been very little player aircraft testing at this point. So to sum it up the first release will be meant for AI use only and limited player aircraft operation. Many thanks to all for the interest and support. NOTE, Video is a "story board" pre production video for CVN-80. I hope to do one for each ship in the class and this one will be redone when the new model is ready. Hope you enjoy

Hey folks! The SE is out, the F-4 looms just beyond the horizon. The long watch is almost over… Possibly. For this reason, I wanted to get a bit more familiar with the Phantom II, and I started with taking a look at the cockpits. The DCS F-4E is not out yet, the old screenshots from Belsimtek are not great, so I have found an alternative, and put together a quick video. Moving the first steps with a new aeroplane is never easy, especially if the game does not match either. I have used MilViz's F-4 for FSX, and this seems to be a DVST Phantom, whereas I am looking forward to the later upgrades, to fit in the best period DCS can imo replicate (late 70s, early 80s). Nevertheless, the difference should not be huge, and this is a good means of familiarising with the cockpit. I am sure there are errors in the video, as I am brand new to the Phantom and I have spent only a dozen hours studying the documentation. So, if you have observations, please do share them, and I will put the corrections in the comments. Thanks! UPDATE 10/07/2023: GUNS & SLATS The F-4E featured two peculiar upgrades that separate it from the predecessors and its Navy brothers: the presence of an internal gun, and the nre wing supporting leading-edge slats. UPDATE 14/07/2023: AIR-TO-AIR WEAPONS EMPLOYMENT An overview of the basic avionics and instrumentation required to employ AIM-7 Sparrow, AIM-9 Sidewinder and the M61A1 20mm Vulcan. UPDATE 23/07/2023: RADAR BASICS & CONTROLS The details of the Radar Set Control Panel, and the purpose of the instruments here installed. UPDATE 03/08/2023: RADAR QUIRKS & FEATURES A discussion about some cool features of the radar and avionics, such as the nutating antenna pattern, or the Computer Automatic Acquisition mode. UPDATE 17/08/2023: AIR-TO-AIR INTERCEPTS - THEORY A two-parts refresher on the basic concepts useful to intercept and engage a target with the F-4E Phantom II. This first video covers the theory. UPDATE 29/08/2023: AIR-TO-AIR INTERCEPTS - PRACTICE The second part of the Air-to-Air Intercepts sees some practical examples using the F-14's DDD B-Scope in Pulse mode.

SA-5 Gammon (S-200 Angara/Vega/Dubna) is a very long-lange SAM system and can be considered as unique in DCS nowadays. Unfortunately, it can't use all of it's capabilities because of lnsufficient range of P-19 or 19J6 (ST-68U) search radars, which are part of it at the moment. According to it's manual handbook [общие сведения о с-200.djvu, page 7], SA-2 is capable of receiving information about target coordinates via K9V cabin, coonected to: 1. Automated control systems: 5S99 "Senezh" (5С99 "Сенеж"), "Vector-2M" ("Вектор-2М"), ASURK-1MA (АСУРК-1МА), ASURK-1P (АСУРК-1П), etc. 2. Radar altimeter PRV13 or PRV17 (ПРВ-13, ПРВ-17) 3. Radar station P-14F "Lena" (РЛС 5Н84 П-14Ф "Лена") also known as Tall King. 4. Radar complex P-80A "Altay" or K66 ("Cabin 66") (РЛК П-80А "Алтай" или К-66), which consists of two radar rangefinders and four radar altimeters Third option (using P-14 radar for circular target search) is, for my opinion, optimal because of it's significant range, which allows to detect tagets outside of 5V21A missile range and use all of it's capabilities, respectively. Futhermore, P-14 radar is already awailable to use in DCS (stationary version 4J66 (4Ж66) )as a third-party modification by @tripod3 It is only needed to add it to the DCS CoreMods and edit LUA code in order to make possible information exchange between P-14 and 5N62 Square Pair TR. Adding mobile version 5N84 is desirable too

Seems to be an Air Force thing... The Hornet doesn't require that "0"... I guess because Marines fly it? <ducking for cover before one of them knocks my teeth down my throat>

For sure Aerges apreciates constructive post and susggestions. As you said, FM development continues being in progress but this aircraft was not protected from envelope departures like fly by wire ones, indeed was really easy to enter in high AoA situations bleeding all the speed. High AoA, low speed continue being tweaked, but rest of the envelope matches with performance and E/M tables. The way to flght with those oponents you are refering to is quite different in this aircraft compared with others. It was not designed for dogfights but can fight well in good hands. Think in how many stick movement you need to get 11-13º AoA, 15-17º and more than 17º. This is the key and never enter in this part of the envelope if not fighting against another F1. Payloads drag index, lift and weights are adjusted per manuals. We continue reviewing that but fight with asymetrical configurations is not a good idea in this aircraft but not imposible. This FM is more demanding than rest of the aircraft, like it is in real life. This is and interceptor, one of the best. Very good in air to ground also, but not the best for dog.

Version 2.68 is released, which adds the F-15E Strike Eagle. The profile is still a WIP, so any suggestions are welcomed. EDIT: For the WSO profile, be sure to add Joy_Btn25 and Joy_Btn26 as modifiers.

Hey guys, been a lurker here for quite a while, but I figured I would give my thoughts on the Pimax Crystal from an average Joe. I have been simming and gaming a long time, not a technical expert by any means, but I get by pretty well. Anyhow, I just got my Crystal up and running. I was using the Pimax 8kx, probably like a lot of new Crystal buyers so I am familiar with a lot of the Pimax issues. My initial thought when first using the headset in DCS was how tiny the FOV is compared to the 8KX. I knew it was going to be smaller, but I was not expecting it to be this small. This was very disappointing! It almost felt claustrophobic. The second thought was, Wow! the clarity and color is beautiful, really impressive! As I continued playing I then started realizing how poor my FPS was. I am using OpenXR and running on a RTX 4080. I was using the same settings I had with the 8KX in Steam VR. Hopefully performance will improve when eye tracking and foveated rendering are up and running. I will be experimenting with settings in the mean time to find the sweet spot between performance and visual quality. I thought the setup was pretty easy(for Pimax) and I was up and running in about 1/2 an hour after unboxing. One positive is the sound, once I got it working (another issue I struggle with on my system with Pimax) it is very good! My 8KX did not have DMAS, big improvement! The quality of the unit seems pretty good, I have not tried the included hand controllers yet, but they seem kind of small and cheap. Another nice thing is that there's no longer a need for base stations. I.jave them.on stands and they kind of clutter up my computer room. The comfort of the unit is about the same as the 8KX, not great, but ok. Sure would be nice to have a fan in these things somewhere. Overall, I am kind of on the fence right now, I love the color and clarity, it really is gorgeous, but I hate the FOV and the performance. Hopefully the performance improves, but the FOV is my main deterrent to really liking this unit. Maybe the 12KX, if it ever comes will be the answer. Unfortunately, I think it will take a beastly system to run based on the Crystal's performance running on a fairly high end system. Anyway, hope that was informative, thanks for the read.

My only point was to explain to you that it is indeed realistic, that's all and I was replying only to that part. I wasn't commenting on how users or devs should deal with it.

Radar channel on A/A radar also sets the radar channel for A/G, if you deconflict the A/A radar you have deconflicted the A/G as well…

I'd honestly rem the code entirely, Users got the idea that popping the breaker was equivalent to pressing the NOS or TCS Off button on a race car. (More power at the expense of stability etc). the issue here is, the over the top story in a book or video interview was over hyped to get the viewer/reader excited, I know pilots that literally laugh at this, Why would you risk compressor stall and losing your aircraft for a measly 2000lbs of thrust (out of a total of 41,800)(aka ~5%), when you can better manage AoA and maintain speed without any risk. If you desperately 5% more total thrust to win all your engagements, your doing something wrong.

I suggest the Israeli tank Merkava Mark 4M with the trophy system. I don't know if it can be done but if so it could be the most powerful and technological tank in dcs.

To go back just type xA and PB10 (UFC) to go back to A list, replace x with the desired point. In the current implementation, you can create up to 10 mark points and any new mark point after that will overwrite the first mark point. You can edit the Lan/Long of the mark point as you do with regular point, but I don’t think there is away to delete them. If you are in mark point list (Mx) you can shift between them with only typing the number and PB10 without the need to write M again. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It’s a known bug. Check the release notes. Simple fix is to aim behind target about 100 feet depending on the BA. The trajectory is currently using a normal dumb bomb which is not correct for a cluster munition that uses parachutes. This is why the -87s don’t fall short or don’t have a problem, but the -97s do. The trajectory is incorrect or being assigned the same trajectory as an -87. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

So who is going to write a book about a survivor of a nuclear apocalypse who is trudging the wasteland to try and find a Developer's PC that has the only working copy of the F-4E Phantom II on it so they can play it before dying of radiation poisoning? But along the was discovers that the true Phantom was the friends he made along the way, and gives it all up to stop the evil 1 eyed villain from achieving his plans of domination.

The limiting factor for RedFor aircraft is political/governmental rather than ED’s decision to only produce FF modules. I fly FC3 because I fly the Su-27 and MiG-29. If they were FF modules, that’s what I’d be flying instead.

Su-25A/T and probably A-10A still use AFM/AFM+.

Hi Enigma, the question Is not addressed to me , but let me state my oppinion: The problem there is that the person flying a n FC3 plane is "playing" by other set of rules, easy procedures, "magic" radars, etc... Now the problem in a CW scenario diminishes since there are less radars and RWRs systems and complex missiles. If I may, you might be confusing interest for the CW era with interest with better and/or more "easy gameplay". I love analog early tech era, mainly 60s to 80s. but I also need and love as real as it gets, not simplified mass of planes with a little variation in some table. for that we do have War Thunder or even IL-2 General survey sims, with lots of content. DCS is a Study sim, it might not be coherent it might have huge gaps, but each module is done as best as it can be done in a consumer PC. That is what we buy when we buy a DCS module. For light sims, you have War Thunder, and you will have MAC. Don´t take away our GRAIL, to transform it into what you want.. specially when you DO have options, and we DON´T have any other "as real as it gets", Full Fidelity Sim on consumer platforms out there. Microprose did go bankrupt when they developed Falcon 4.0 (full fid. + lots of content + dynamic campaign: 1 plane. DCS might not be anywhere near perfect but its what we have for now regarding Full Fidelity. THAT is the essence of DCS. it has been since Black Shark. And you are saying its essence its its main predicament. or problem... Sorry, can´t agree. I Enjoy your servers because it is as real as it gets with what we have. Change that to an all FC3 server and you will lose me at least as a pilot. I don´t play to kill planes, Y play to feel like a pilot, not to feel like a GAMER playing with planes. Yes i use a GAME, but that game is my tool to feel like a pilot for a little while.

OP updated.

New version (v2) released, no more mods are required and no more units are placed. Please find the updated .miz in the original post. Enjoy! Changelog: Removed all units, only the marked positions remain. No mods are required now. I plan to release a version where units are placed. Added locations of buildings and sites targeted and destroyed during the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis in the Gaza Strip. Only confirmed hits, like this. Added locations of rocket launch sites of Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Added all missing SAM and EW sites in Egypt Added Israeli's Northern Patriot Sites Added Muwaffaq Salti Air Base location in Jordan (please add OnReTech!) Added Hatzerim air base descriptions. Home of the IDF Air Force school. Added IDF Tactical Training Center south of Hatzerim air base.

lmao as soon as someone wants to say something he is toxic extremist, what does that make you then? I mean you are calling people names... Cause people think, we all have the same rights to express our opinions, for example you are exercising your freedom of speech and with it you are risking being offensive now why shouldn't I be able to do that? Enigma makes video promoting his cause and rightfully so, why shouldn't others have the right to be able to defend their cause? And its only you that is attacking people here with calling them toxic and extremists, you are not the master of this universe sorry, please re evaluate your words first before calling someone else toxic and extremist. I hope you can understand what I'm talking about.

Think of "PFM" as a trademarked term that 3rd parties are not allowed to use. EFM used by 3rd parties is just as good as PFM, it's just called differently. The last module in DCS to use AFM was the FC3 MiG-29, and that was fixed a few years ago. All official modules either from ED themselves or from a registered 3rd party use PFM or equivalent. Only user-made mods sometimes use dodgy / made-up flight models.

Miltech-5 / PD (Bo-105).

This guy made a airquake PvP server with 60 tik tok users battling to infinity and now thinks everyone thinks like he does, he is a good video maker that's for sure. But he is forgetting not everyone wants a balanced PvP game, there are other games that go for that. I think that many many people fly in DCS cause of high fidelity of those FF planes and we love it. I really enjoy just taking off with full preparation from Nellis and going for a course around Nevada fly to tanker and drop few bombs and return to base, with as much procedure following as I can and know how to do. I don't need adversary balanced for this. And If I encounter adversaries I don't expect them to be on pair with my jet, they have their advantage and I have mine and I try to use my advantage as best as I can. In real world there is never a fair fight and that's what DCS simulates. I love to loiter in the air coordinate with and wait for SEAD/DEAD flight to do its job so I can run in drop 2 JDAMS on some bunker that is my target. sometimes it will take an hour, in the meantime I'll watch the air battle on my HSD or SA page and cheer when red contact fades from being shot down by our escort. Or I'll do the SEAD/DEAD job while other flights prepare to run in. I love modern jets cause of lots of systems I can fiddle with inside them, and I'm happy with every new update to them. We all know documentation is hard to come by, and that module development takes a lot of time and we are fine with it. That's what I love about DCS, and that is why I'm here and I'm sure many others are too.

No, and no. In essence the Mach 5 claim was not accurate to any actual demonstrated and documented performance, in reality you're looking at more like low Mach 4s when firing from high altitude/speed and at ranges where the missile can loft properly. NASA never actually tested/fired the Phoenix in the hypersonic proof of concept presentation. DCS missile behavior is still very problematic and lofting can't be adjusted to more specifically match what the Phoenix attempts to do. But in at least some of the few documented shots with enough data available, the DCS Phoenix's ballistic very closely matched those shots. The issues with notching and inefficient lofting profiles are squarely on the ED missile model and HB has no way to further adjust specifics of lofting angles nor seeker performance.