Leaderboard

Bal LBASM 1.0.0 released! Changelog Version 1.0.0 Release version

Bastion-P LBASM 1.4.0 released! Changelog Version 1.4.0 Changed 3M55M launch delay Changed K340P engine sound Changed K340P textures Changed Monolit-B textures Fixed K340P 3D model size issue Fixed K340P destroyed model size issue Fixed Monolit-B 3D model size issue Fixed Monolit-B destroyed model size issue

Hi all! Thanks for the attention to the mod. Old power station: with PWR / PHWR type nuclear reactor, widely exported to many countries. I think it will be ready today.

Miltech-5

Oh, by the way, I'm back from my trip.

Hello Vaicom users Now that we have entered a stable period for the software, I thought I would provide an update on what we are working on apart from fixing the last minor bugs with a couple of modules. We are adding the ability for the user to Enable/Disable the three main Vaicom Pro extensions, When it was paid you could easily deactivate the licenses' and turn them off and on that way. One we rolled it into the free version with no activation we lost that ability. One of the impacts of this is that with ED moving to allow multiplayer servers to require clients to have pure client scripts, This has meant on these servers the use of the AI RIO Extension or KNEEBOARD extension caused a failure of the Integrity check (IC) when joining those servers. This is because Vaicom Pro appends some information to some DCS files so it can operate. To return flexibility to the user the Vaicom Pro UI Extensions Tab will include check boxes to Enable/Disable AI RIO, CHATTER and KNEEBOARD. null Due to the deep integration of the AIRIO and KNEEBOARD extensions it will require DCS to be Shutdown and Voice Attack shutdown and relaunched to append the DCS side files. In the case of the CHATTER Extension it can be hot changed with DCS running if desired. The user is notified in the Voice Attack UI LOG if you try to use an Extension that is disabled. When relaesed you will notice some other minor changes to the Vaicom Pro UI to add Tool Tips and some relabling to clarify options. Other ideas I'm personally working on are direct Moose Ops Airboss support to allow voice communications with marshal and LSO, If I get that working as I hope, It could lead to a broader Moose connections. I'm also looking at much the same integration for Hound. nullnull

Posting this as a WIP for now. It's pretty much finished and I want to start on an Israeli B-17. I need a break from this one but still have some refinements that I want to do. Serial number 42-38050 was a B-17G-25-DL, code: BN U, nicknamed "Thunderbird". The plane flew 112 combat missions with the 359th Bombardment Squadron of the 303rd Bombardment Group. She reputedly was crewed by 538 different airmen, none of whom suffered an injury aboard Thunderbird. Returned to the United States after the war, she was sent to Kingman Army Airfield, Arizona, where she was scrapped. This plane is the subject of a 25-by-75-foot (7.6 by 22.9 m) mural in the World War II Gallery of the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C., entitled "Fortresses Under Fire", completed 1975–1976. The artist, Keith Ferris, depicted Thunderbird on her 70th mission at 11:45 a.m., August 15, 1944, over Trier, Germany, on her return to Molesworth following a mission to bomb Wiesbaden, and is historically accurate in the encounter portrayed.

Swedish Cockpit done.

The 4SP/4SW loadout was the only loadout for fighter missions (that is everything that did not include fleet air defense against bombers and strikers) up until the mid/late 80s. It was believed that the Sparrow provided enough of an advantage in the BVR arena against anything the USSR and its allies would field. The Phoenix on the other hand was considered too valuable to be expanded against fighters. It was not until the R-24 and R-27 were introduced that the Phoenix was also considered for fighter missions as the Sparrow was not superior enough in range and reliability (although that is debatable given the quality of russian fighter radars and radar missiles) to provide favorable kill ratios.

Work perfect. There is not reason anymore to set an aircraft carrier 30km from the coast

Hi ....Im Ger.....Ive got 90% of all the modules and I think Ive found my new sweetheart...The F-15E ..... Im trying to learn this thing but sometimes it gets a bit hectic at times ...so Im looking for a WSO,,,based in Europe who has a little time each week to learn to try to get the most of of this animal....but I want a female WSO..... Cuz Its realistic and also interesting...in my opinion. So.... come on girls....line up !!! I really hope that Razbam include the option of a Female/Male voice for the WSO,when it indeed happens,,which I believe it will. P.S..........Im not a perve !!!

The CAS has 1/3rd control surface movement authority. So if you move the stick full aft and the CAS decides that’s the wrong thing, you only get 2/3rds the deflection. It uses this to create artificial feel in certain situations to provide feedback for impending situations. The stall inhibitor is one example of this. As you get below a certain speed the CAS reduces your elevator movement for stick movement slightly, resulting in the nose feeling “heavier” Think as you move the stick aft, the CAS programs some of that out in order to make it feel like more stick movement is required in order to reach a stall condition. We actually do test the CAS on itself as a show and tell during the B course, pilot or WSO locks the stick between their knees then the opposite cockpit will do a few maneuvers using just the force sensor. Works but again you are only getting 1/3rd control authority so you aren’t going to be doing anything super aggressive with it.

Version 1.2 Updated July 13, 2023 DOWNLOAD HERE: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3331710/ - Start from Push version now will start with autopilot set to fly to steerpoint 3. This will extend the "do not touch" period to about 23 seconds after start. Aircraft will roll right, left and right, this is normal. - Mission logic has changed. Player will not notice anything different, except as above. The changes just make it much easier for me to maintain two missions at the same time.

Awesome mod! Thanks currenthill

This is already fixed and will be included in next OB update. First click on mode selector will switch to the next position. It is normal that it jumps from one indication to another when switching the system on, as it's a magnetic indicator.

This is already fixed and will be included in next OB update. First click on mode selector will switch to the next position. It is normal that it jumps from one indication to another when switching the system on, as it's a magnetic indicator.

They are fun in PVP and the MIG-29 is a real challenge to fly. It would be great, if they were FF, but it's also fun without them. There's the "FC3 clickable" mod, which makes it somewhat clickable. If ED would show some love to the FC3 aircraft and update the textures/2D models and animations and fix the bugs, FC3 would be really awesome. Even without FF.

People are just testing it out thinking of it as the FF 15C version, which it is not. In BVR it's rather AMRAAM vs AIM-54 advantages, in WVR the 15E loses it's teeth due to draggy and heavy CFTs at least until it gets AIM-9X/HMCS. It's only as simple as the systems and features you want to use. If you stay only in pilot's pit the F-14 is much easier in workload. There's currently no AI WSO in 15E. Chose the one you like most is my advice, not the potential features it can use. Focus on A2A if that's what you like and all becomes much simpler. Don't forget the FC3 aircraft if the combat is your main concern.

From TO 1F-15E-1 This is the explanation of "LIGHTING EQUIPMENT" in SECTION I. Position Lights The position lights include a green light on the forward edge of the right wing tip, a red light on the forward edge of the left wing tip, and a white light just below the tip of the left vertical tail fin. The position lights are controlled by a knob on the exterior lights control panel labeled POSITION. With the anticollision lights on, the position lights automatically go to steady full brilliance, regardless of the position of the position lights knob.

i hope this project its still alive, i have a lot of photos of the f15c cockpit, and i hope this work whoops, the first photo its an f15a, im sorry

Didn't someone just release one? https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3331948/

Its already on the roadmap, thanks.

Frogfoot has; a) Very Big Rockets b) Laser-Guided Very Big Rockets c) Even Bigger Rockets

VF-74 operating in the Gulf of Sydra in 1986 VF-14 in 1990 VF-154 in 1987 VF-32 in 1990 VF-41 and 84 off Iran in 1980 (bonus Eagle Claw invasion stripes) As Sylfa said, until the introduction of the AIM-54C and the appearance of large numbers of Soviet/Pact medium range missiles in the mid/late 80s there's a dichotomy where AIM-54s are for bombers/missiles, and Sparrows are for fighters and everything else. You tend to find the 0x4x4, 0x4x2 or 0x5x3 loadouts on jets that are around hotspots where it's expected they might have to engage other fighters. Of the six pictures above, two were taken in the Gulf of Sydra during the Naval Action of '86 and El Dorado Canyon. One was taken during the preparations for Operation Eagle Claw. One was during a separate period of tensions with Iran during which two US F-14s fired Sparrows at an Iranian F-4 in response to it shooting a Sparrow at a US P-3, and the remaining two were likely during Desert Shield.

That is good news, I hope You haved some deserved rest.

I found the Issue, go to the DCS install folder: (Make sure to make a copy of this file before you replace) Mods/aircraft/JF-17/Cockpit/Scripts and replace this file: null command_defs.lua the problem is line 496 it says "HUD_CONT_Inc" but should say "HUD_CONT_Dec"

This is how it works for me. I'm starting to get to the point where I can feel those first four slices shrinking though. Also to the point where I can start doing things the canned scripts in the ME either can't do, or can do but would be tedious beyond belief to create triggers for every unit instead of just using a loop in a custom script.

Is anyone else having trouble getting this to work? When I try to use the castle switch to scroll through MFD pages by clicking that direction, it is super inconsistent. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes I have to click about 5 times to get it to work. I’m setting up the pages to scroll in the order I’d like, then making the MFD I’d like to switch the sensor of interest, then castling that direction, but it only works occasionally. Any insight?

There will be a substation with 8 transformators in this asset

You know, it would be possible to mount 3 more SD-10 if they delayed ignition of the rocket by 1.5 - 2 seconds. 9.8 m/sec/sec it should be about 7.5 - 9.8 meters away from the aircraft when ignited...

Have you ever considered that you are old.

Read the book "From F-4 Phantom to A-10 Warthog" by Steve Ladd and you will get a phenomenal encyclopedia of fighter pilot humor. After which it should be obvious that jester's humor is extremely immature, just like that of the pilots of the time.

A year ago I submited a Wish about this, hopefully ED will grant it on a future Mission Editor update (fingers crossed)

Good morning! I understand I’m probably going to get slammed by a few for asking this. I do realize that new information is made available as it becomes available. But I have to ask. Is there any updates/news to share about the work in progress being made toward the “flight model for ground effect, takeoff pitch effects, auto-pilot based on FPM, touch and go handling, and other remaining flight model issues”? I really loved reading and learning from the white paper on radar improvements! The flight model was the top voted on improvement and I’m very excited to see and learn about the work that is being done on that as well! I’m a GA pilot, but being an avionics technician is what pays the bills. It’s a career I chose because of the ever changing and improving of systems and software so a lot of the fun wrapped into this wonderful sim for me, is getting new and improved fixes and advances toward aircraft “squawks/gripes”. Long story short, I’d really like to see something on the Hornet flight model. Thank you to anyone who took the time to read and consider this.

Thank you for the clarification! (How disappointing!)

Why? ... I bet you also think the same of the I-16 too DCS already has three trainers: C-101, L-39, and the MB.339 ... are you really looking forward to another one? Are you aware that those belong to Eagle Dynamics, while the Chirsten Eagle is the work of a third party? Of course, like there are so many DCS users purchasing assets Packs (most whine all the time about why the WW2 Assets pack isnt free). I totally understand that the CE2 isn't the combat aircraft most users want, but ranting about it is so pointless ...

Thanks for your work A complex electric transformator/substation would be great too transformator staion - Bing

The virtual hangar tour is really nice, definitely some very cool aircraft in there!

Erm, hang on... In that very exchange above, the first commenter states that it "didn't integrate well at first" though a fix was found but wasn't in the TO summary. So, not only is it kinda dubious to say "it's perfectly capable" (if something was "perfectly capable" of supporting it, why did it not "integrate well at first" and why did it need a solution to make them so? Worse (so long as I'm reading it right) the 3rd commentator states that they tried for 3 months unsuccessfully to get it to work (so I take it this wasn't a trivial fix)) but also to say that the F-4G and F-4E are identical in this regard - they have the same radar, yes, but this exchange makes it clear that the G was modified to be capable of employing it and that this fix wasn't mentioned in the technical order summary. So Ms merely being listed in a 1990 F-4G-1 isn't evidence that the E is similarly capable, especially when a revised 1990 1F-4E-1 (i.e the relevant manual) doesn't list them.

You're incredible, thank you CH.

I wouldn't call my post a direct request, more like a sigh... I was really looking forward to this map, mainly because of the area of Israel and the Sinai Peninsula. I'll admit it... I'm disappointed. Overall, the map looks somewhat uninteresting, the shades of the surface textures are quite faded, the detailed textures of the rock formations are a rarity. Otherwise, the terrain is so round, uniform... This area was a challenge for the developers due to the Dead Sea... As we know, you can't model terrain below 0 sea level and I was curious to see how they deal with it. I'm aware of all the technical limitations in map development, but this was also a big disappointment. The terrain around is too flat, I could imagine that, for example, the hills and mountains around the Dead Sea will be adjusted in height so that they are highlighted, even if at the expense of their "real" altitude. I previously had one question regarding air bases. According to the available materials, it appears that at some bases the fortified stands (hangars) are below the level of the surrounding terrain, and the planes then depart from them as if "uphill". It would certainly be an interesting feature... Cities. buildings... are just geometrically arranged formations, they even repeat themselves depending on the area. I admit that I have a problem with orientation, it would be nice to add some suburbs, important buildings, landmarks, etc. Here I would plead for more variety. It is also clear to me that the goal was not to create a VFR map, but if I am comparing it with, in my opinion, probably the best current map for DCS: Syria. And let's face it, for example, the north of Israel is almost perfect, including the representation of the city of Haifa (including such a trifle as the Bahai Gardens). We are at the beginning, I believe that the future will bring many new and good things. I know the team has done a great job and I thank them for that. I don't want to provoke a difficult discussion here, I'm just giving my opinion, I think even this will be interesting for developers, if not, nothing happens. There's no need to comment, either someone has a similar feeling or just say to yourself, that guy is completely off

Cast zinc, as used by TM and WW is an inferior material compared to a good glass filled nylon like virpil use. (Before anyone says it's aluminium - it's "aluminium alloy" which is marketing talk for 95% zinc, 4% alu, 1% various) The only benefit to it is that it provides a wow factor to people that don't know any better, hence why it's TM and WW using it. Making the grip from zinc reduces longevity (zinc is prone to developing stress fractures over time and is less impact resistant), the weight can negatively impact performance in some applications and, for many aircraft, it would be a less realistic feel since grips are mostly not metal now. Making the shell from machined alu would solve those problems (it's a good material for the application, it will be only slightly heavier than nylon, it's lower thermal capacity Vs zinc makes it feel less different) but would be much more expensive to make in reasonable quantities Vs moulded plastic or cast zinc.

as soon as I have the date I will update the patch status post on the forum. It all depends on internal testing results. thanks

很抱歉我写错了型号，应该是23560导弹驱逐舰。

The main reason is to fly aircraft that aren't available otherwise. But apart from that, I rarely fly them - I don't see much enjoyment outside of instant action style missions compared to a full-fidelity aircraft.

This work for me! Thank you!

Yes experienced users like yourself, who understand how Voice Attack and VaicomPro relate can use other methods. I personally have a very different work flow as I'm always uninstalling and reinstalling. The use of Voice Attack export and import functions and the deletion of the VAICOMPRO folder in Voice Attack Apps was to ensure that less confident users got rid of their prevous profile, yet retained their TX and personal commands. All current DCS Commands are in the Vaicom server database. It will be just a matter of activating new ones that had not been implemented by Hollywood.

This is great for group missions where one squadron maybe tasked with recce or similar which will then be fed into the brief for the next sortie as part of the group. I am pretty excited by this.

Good one