Leaderboard

New release: Large national thermal power plant - 2 cooling towers in various combinations (doubled, separated, with and without ribbed walls) - Main building (IRL it for 4 boilers, turbines) and smokestack - pipes for delivering steam to cooling towers - secondary building with generating unit, filters and pipes - small tech buildings - power line Example mission with correct buildings positions attached. Almost all buildings have damage model. Units are named "CPP Big ..." in ME DOWNLOAD big_coolingev.miz

Maybe this is not allowed to post here but i just have to say thank you for this module! it is so awesome! The best module i have by far! There are some buggs and stuff but i bet it will get fixed! I just love this thing! Anyway that was my "rant" Cheers Wags and the team!

I think it's worth stopping for a moment and appreciating that you're arguing about whether the modelled radar technology is strobe or not... ...in a virtual simulation. Let's all just appreciate how far we've come in technology, that we're having an honest-to-goodness discussion about which methodology of electromagnetic propogation in radar technology is modelled. Not that it's being modelled at all, but which one. Not that we have the fidelity to recreate propogation and the physical limitations and dimensions thereof as standard base of in-game fidelity, but which one. I'm just over here like that guy at the world's fair in 1929 who saw a lightbulb switch for the first time. I don't care what bulb is in that light - the fact you could turn it on and off again with a switch is enough to override the squabbling of which one.

let me give you some background: I don't have a lot of free time to fly DCS. Maybe a few hours on the weekend if I'm lucky. I've got a job and family. Here is a log of my typical DCS experiences, which pretty much sums up the situation EVERY time I get a few hours to fly. DCS shouldn't be this difficult OTHER than learning to fly your chosen platform. fire up DCS, find user-created mission that seems like the one you want to fly**. **when I want to fly a strike, I don't want to be tasked with a CAP. When I want to take out a building, I don't want a SEAD mission... ---or-- try to create a simple, coordinated mission with AI SEAD, CAP, and OPFOR response patterns etc... (this alone is an all-day task WITHOUT flying) Fly the mission: 10 minutes for startup, 10 minutes for taxi, an hour for marshall, etc... the missions doesn't perform as expected for whatever reason (parking issues, static templates overlapping, AI taxi issues, AI crashing on takeoff, etc). Mission editor, try to fix mission. 1-2 hours. Change, fly, debug, change, fly, debug... the AI doesn't perform as expected (tasking issues, ignored orders, terrain following, etc). Mission Editor, try to fix AI issues. **most likely will include lua scripting. Change, fly, debug, change, fly, debug... Another 1-2 hours. get the mission to a "workable" condition, start the sim, fly for an hour and ... go to step 2 again. More AI issues. Mission editor, try to fix mission. 1-2 hours. Change, fly, debug, change, fly, debug... Fly the mission: 10 minutes for startup, 10 minutes for taxi, an hour for marshall, etc... on target and now have weapon issues. CBUs not effective, static objects non-destructible, weapons won't perform as expected (module bugs), can't lock targets, AI ignoring orders and doing *whatever* they want... Back in to ME to fix THOSE issues...another 1-2 hours. Fix, debug, fly, ME, Fix, debug, fly... So far, I'm 3-4 hours into DCS --WITHOUT EVEN COMPLETING THE MISSION I DESIGNED OR GETTING TO FLY AT ALL. ***** That's it. 3-4 hours. My free time is gone for the week, I've barely flown for less than an hour and I've got nothing to show for it. Let's try again next week after updates change *everything* and I have to re-learn *everything*. ***** TLDR; --> ED: Fix your core bugs. DCS stands for "Digital ***Combat*** Simulator. What you all have created is (albeit the best and most wonderful in the business) a "Empty Sandbox Flight Simulator". My advice to you is to focus on the "C" of DCS instead of releasing "early release" modules that will NEVER be completed (because you've already got my money (F16, F18, Normandy, etc)!!)

Hi All We are pleased to publish our next release that fixes some SRS PTT Integration issues on various modules and adds the ability to enable/disable individual extensions using the VaicomPro UI EX tab. This will allow users to customise their VaicomPro experience to only include the extensions they need and use. It also means by disabling AIRIO and Kneeboard in the UI, you can now join a multiplayer server that requires pure client scripts without failing the Integrity Check (IC). We hope you enjoy 2.8.5 The user configuration update. CHANGELOG: Fixed MB339 to return to single TX node. Fixed F-5E-3 TX1 node as primary. Fixed various modules SRS PTT Integration and radio names. Added Chatter enable /disable checkbox to Extension Tab. (hot switchable) Added Kneeboard enable /disable checkbox to Extension Tab. (Requires DCS restart) Removed redundant Extensions folder Removed redundant Setup.exe Updated the VaicomPro Community manual Known Issues F-14 A/B wheel chocks can get out of sequence and require setting in place then removing to remove them. To download head over to. https://github.com/Penecruz/VAICOMPRO-Community/releases/tag/v2.8.5.0 Cheers the Community Team

Free to Play | Multiplayer Development Progress | Calling on Content Creators! Dear Fighter Pilots, Partners and Friends, We would like to take this opportunity to remind you that the Free to Play Program is available for all of our most popular modules, such as the DCS: F-16C Viper, DCS: F/A-18C, DCS: AH-64D, DCS: Mi-24P Hind. If you haven’t yet test flown some of the fabulous aircraft, don’t wait to discover something challenging and new. We are happy to announce that we are working on some important improvements to the multiplayer interface. The first step involves adding numerous filters and a search field to the "Select role" server screen. The second phase will include being able to select spawn locations directly from the map. These enhancements are based on your feedback and from multiplayer server owners, closed beta testers and content creators. Thank you and keep those ideas flowing. Please kindly remember that if you are a server owner or a content creator, we’d love to hear from you! Make sure to get in touch for a chance to be featured in a future newsletter. Thank you for your passion and support. Yours sincerely, Eagle Dynamics __Free to Play | Multiplayer Development Progress | Calling on Content Creators!__ https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/newsletters/4d003ebe55ff58ad10fbc08bcd060e3b/

Skins and Versions

I believe Razbam is working on the exocet launcher.

So is flying an F-15e in my bedroom. Just saying

Hi @Bestandskraft, So, cx_pil is only used by the AI, the drag coefficient of the stores that the flyable aircraft uses is calculated internally. The real effect of a store on drag coefficient will depend on the interference drag too, so it will vary on each aircraft and even on the specific configuration. Using our own values allows us to reflect the specific data we have and to take Mach number into account, which would not be possible just by taking the value from the lua. For example, we use values based on the performance data that we have available. That being said, I believe you have noticed a bug in the Belouga and maybe GBU-12 bombs. Thanks for the thorough report, we will try to correct the Belouga bug for the next update.

"OT" is an Operational Test aircraft, it is used to help develop weapon system and test the effectiveness a new weapon platform. From my understanding once the Development group is happy with the results, they start working with Nellis "WA" aircraft to create employment practices for the unit level. So, any photos with an "OT" or "WA" deploying a weapon don't mean that it was ever handed down to a unit or used in combat.

Testing is in progress, I dont have a public date to share currently but as soon as I do I will update the patch status post. thanks

Hi Currenthill, thanks for your hard work and the great assets you upload! I also join those of us who would like to see a model of the SAM S-500 Prometey to be able to intercept hypersonic missiles at a greater distance and also replace the older SAMs. I also suggest an asset that not many know about it, in the Malvinas/Falklands war the Argentine army designed a launch car to fire an Exocet missile from the ground for the first time in history.

This is already fixed. It will appear in next imminent Open Beta update.

Great work @tripod3! Your structures are very useful additions.

I have been making missions since black shark, upload youtube videos, and operate private squadron dedicated server for ages. My only feedback to ED would be continue making progress on optimizing engine performance to enable large scale dynamic campaign that has at least same features of a existing combat flight simulator.

А я попросил бы более простого: сделать уже наконец клавиатурные команды задатчика курса РМИ. Мышкой выставить затруднительно точно в полёте. Я понимаю, бета-версия, но навигацию вводить в функционал - первоочерёдное, по-моему. «Войнушки» потом можно.

Hi, thank you for the feedback, good to see you are enjoying the AH-64D, more work is being done during early access and new features still to come.

I make the pop-ups erratic and extreme on purpose. To simulate a more complex final maneuver that the missile would have in real life. Especially since we can't move it laterally which would increase its Pkill enormously. The doors are configured correctly, they open on alarm state red and close on green. But it's up to DCS to determine if they go back to green. And I've found that ships in DCS have a tendency to not go back to green as land assets do.

great! next tIme fGM-148 JAVELIN can you make? Ukraine skin l wish there was also

Admittedly we have made a little progress. I did an A2A refueling followed by a 1 hour, 500 mile, 38 waypoint formation flight tour of Syria with an AI F-14A as lead (practicing my formations) followed by five minutes of A2A refueling to get some gas followed by realizing a landing with 15,000 pounds of gas in an F-18 is really hard on the brakes. Should have dropped the tanks, but I'm also practicing A2A refueling. This is where I started with flight sims in 1981:

Type 022 FAC version 1.0.0 released! Changelog Version 1.0.0 Release version

Made this video that covers engine management in the Mustang. It's mostly geared to those considering or are new to the P-51, though has good information for all:

Radiocheck... Hi fighters! For a long time we did not get in touch, but all this time the work did not stop. Improving, optimizing, adding, introducing something new - everything we worked on was connected with these words. Today we will show new night lighting and some hangars. The update includes many minor improvements - we made sure that the map is relevant and fresh. So what's most interesting: New lighting technology added. Added right-hand traffic in Cyprus. Map description updated. Added kneeboard (yeah, this fix has long been waiting in the wings) Mission generator updated. Added helicopter landing sites on GUI map. Optimized trees in forest. Simplified trees collisions. Optimized and improved building models. Added objects at road and railroad crossings. Two types of gas stations have been added. Two types of road-side cafes added. Improved cars. Added right-hand drive vehicles. Improved city and field assets. Improved road and railroad assemblies.

Hi, I noticed that sometimes, after a cold start, flight and shut down, George keeps pressing T6, L6, T6 in a sequence on his left MFD. I tried searching for this in the Bugs section but found nothing. Sorry if I missed it. Anybody?

I made a template by adding each building in the same group (vehicles/fortifications) and then templates.

Glad you enjoyed it! To answer specifically, the generator doesn’t produce much, if any, power at low RPM. So that’s part of the cockpit flow for me either during the runup to make sure it works, or when lining up on the runway. Opening the radiators ensures that they aren’t forgotten later, like during takeoff. Plus if you open them before starting the engine, you can hear the door drive motors and know that the doors move and that they are wide open. Closing them does not help as much for warmup. One exception I have is in winter missions, I’ll close the oil door to help keep the oil warm, but open it up again when taking the runway. Way to easy to forget that they are shut leads to a very fast overheat shortly after takeoff. Really wish the Mustang featured the door position indicators like the Jug has. They still need to work on the AI for the warbirds, very hard to keep with them in most situations. For climbing, @kablamoman has a great technique posted above. I run my climbs at max continuous as well. Descents I run the engine as needed, usually leave the prop at whatever I was running for cruise, throttle as needed. If I need to slow down, I’ll speed the engine up to 2,700 RPM. Sounds counterintuitive, but that extra RPM adds drag and slows you down. Situation dependent on combat power. If I’m about to be engaged, I increase power to max continuous. If I need more, I can run both handles forward for 3,000 and 61 inches, and can run that for 15 minutes (watch your temperatures). And from there I’ll engage war emergency if needed.

That's correct. 61"/3000 RPM will give you max performance in a climb. To go back to your analogy of shifting gears in a car, the lower the gear, or finer the pitch, the better you will accelerate. This has diminishing returns when it comes to the propeller, though, so the governor will automatically adjust to take a bigger bite of the air as the aircraft speeds up. You can think of it as continuously automatically shifting for you. Your best rate-of-climb speed is around 175 mph from sea level up to 10,000 decreasing to 170 at 15,000, and 165 at 20,000 to 25,000. It'll climb really well even at max continuous power (46"/2700 RPM) and 200 mph. These are sustained climbs in a piston prop, so you won't be zooming up like in a jet. If you're having trouble maintaining above 150 mph, double check your flaps and gear are up, set your power as desired, and control your speed with your pitch attitude (ie. if you're too slow, lower your nose). It'll settle into a steady climb of 2,000+ feet per minute at the lower levels and will end up being very shallow indeed once you're up above 30,000' -- you won't even be able to maintain above 1,000 FPM at the higher altitudes of the aircraft's flight envelope, and the best rate won't be much different (maybe a bit slower than 165 mph at 25,000 feet).

Hi, please take a look at our recent newsletter, we have already implemented phase 1 of the radar update and phase 2 is in progress. Phase 2 is planned to include: look down, variable RCS, ground clutter, false targets, tracking through the beam. Improved holding of STT/HDTWS lock should be in the next update. thanks

Yeah, fair enough, but in case you're unaware, they tend to take FOREVER.

Select the UN livery, maybe add a door gunner or remove the IR suppressors from the ground crew menu and do some sling loading. Looks cool from the outside and is fun from the inside. Thank you devs for implementing sling loading with the audio cues for the Hind.

In way I'd also say there was a golden age in the 90s. Of course the simulations had severe limitations in terms of visuals and even more so in terms of actually simulating, but as Yurgon said, there were a lot of them that made up for it with very clever game design, to the point where I still pull up my favourite 1993 flight sim once in a while and, now and then, sigh deeply when I see some of the things that were possible then and seem way, way, way out of league to even ask for now. But my personal nostalgia aside, I think one of the bits that made that a golden age in a way was, that (and no doubt this had a lot to do with limitations at the time) even the ones that were considered 'hardcore simulators' were quite a lot more accessible than they are today in multiple ways. There wasn't nearly the same landscape of seriously expensive hardware going around and besides the 'hardcore simulators' there was a little ecosystem of somewhat more arcade-like, yet still comparable, flight simulation games. This all worked to a point that - at least where I grew up - anybody who was somewhat serious about PC games actually had a 'joystick' (the term HOTAS for stuff you put on your desk wasn't even invented yet), and quite keen to get use out of it. If you then decided that 'proper' simulators weren't quite your style, you could always dive into the space shooters that were popular then and sadly have since disappeared almost entirely. In a certain light I can't shake the feeling that with simulators that have gotten a lot more sophisticated, but mostly the tremendous advances made in simulator hardware, we can do quite amazing things, but quite rightfully it isn't as easy anymore to get people interested in the first place.

Thanks! The only way is to arrange trees manually, this will put a lot of strain on the mission maker and on the computer. I was interested in making so-called decals, which would allow creating a realistic asphalt or concrete substrate for various factories and military bases.

You're so lucky @Dark_P. We, all forum members have waited for this module for looong years. Try to feel our emotions.

It has been 3 days since I received my Pimax crystal. The good: excellent image quality, great colors, and a very light optical cable. That is all. The bad: - facial foams (both of them) do not fill your face; there is a big gap on both sides; moving your head around breaks your sweetspot. -lens have visible sweetspot and is very weird, moving your head you can clearly see the difference in plane sims - lens distortion on sides but very visible on the bottom of the lens in menus and plane sims - ghosting on the edges when moving your head left or right - 30-40% less fps/performance than HP G2 in plane sims with high end pc with RTX 4090. even with lowered resolution, even if i set similar resolution as HP G2 in Open XR Toolkit -dmas is not bad, but i still think HP G2 speakers are better -tracking in dim light is better for the HP G2 - Controllers are a joke -power hub in the package is junk - overall build quality doesn't justify the 1900 euro product -you can see led light from the power button in the helmet -Pimax Client/ Pi server eat 10-13% cpu usage and 5-10% gpu usage even on standby, even with helmet powered off. If they don't release eye tracking and DFR in 10 days to recover some of the performance, i will return it. I hate to be an early adopter, especially when i read now that they plan to make changes to the design to fix the problems with comfort.

The accuracy of the eye trackers in those devices is enough for coarse pointing, but in something as dense as in a virtual cockpit, you won't go very far, especially if the pointing isn't implemented in the game (where the game could snap onto game elements). I haven't tried Quest Pro - but I think that's what you have? If so, if you download the latest version of my Quad-Views-Foveated (formerly Meta-Foveated), you can enable a debug option `debug_eye_gaze=1` in the settings that will show a purple dot where you are looking. You will be able to judge the accuracy and also the "stability" of pointing. Let me know what you think. Doing it myself on Aero, Crystal and G2 Omnicept, I can tell that pointing isn't good enough for a crowded cockpit. You can stare at something, and the dot is always "close" but not quite there. So if you have a bunch of knobs very close to each other, you wouldn't be able to precisely pick one. You will also see how "shaky" the pointing is, the dot is always doing slight movements. It's too sensitive, though that part can maybe improved by filtering. For a solution like that to work out, you'd need a way to declutter the cockpit (less dense amount of controls) which would be less realistic. You would need the game to implement the pointing feature, so that it would "snap on" to the closest control. It would be great if a game developer tried, but I think there are many challenges before this can be an even remotely pleasant experience.

I dont know what you think of it, but I for myself gonna be waiting for the Release till I start complaining Jokeing aside...... I guess most of us who play DCS want to get as close as possible to flying a real Plane. If you are looking for a Simulator which is easy to fly, has no challenge to master or bets mostly on action.......DCS is the wrong Sim. For sure it will be a Challenge to master flying the Phantom.....or the Radar...or a Dogfight....or this.....or that.... If you want to feel like a real Crewmember flying the Phantom you have to face the same Problems the real Crews had to face.......but thats just my Oppinion.

Paranormal activity. I think it must be a ghost who served in the cockpit before George.

FONTE https://www.facebook.com/PolyDynamicsDCS/posts/763814685751653?ref=embed_post https://www.facebook.com/PolyDynamicsDCS/posts/763983825734739?ref=embed_post https://www.facebook.com/PolyDynamicsDCS/posts/764336665699455?ref=embed_post Bye Phant

If you have limited time don’t spend it messing around with the mission editor. There are plenty of included, instant action or missions you can generate with the quick mission creator.

The same just happened to me: I reproduced the bug in different Huey slots, saved the track, and it won't show the bug. I took a video. It should motivate devs to try and try again until they see the issue and understand how it happens.

I'd say we are about to reach the golden era when you can combine simpits with VR passthrough so you get 3d vr view outside the cockpit and then passthru image inside the cockpit like you can do with some of the more expensive headsets. And when we get strong enough hardware and stable software that will be the beginning of the golden era i would say. Now it is still in its infancy with borderline barely playable VR, but way way ahead of what we had in 90s. Having absolute 100% realism with the planes systems is completely irrelevant to home sims imo, nobody can tell the small differences unless they fly the jet irl and that is a very small part of the market. Close enough approximations based on public data is fine, things like dynamic campaign and better ai would improve the overall experience more.

one of the best qualities of a catamaran - it has almost no roll

Hi. IC mode is a short pulse mode. This would then also be supported by a certain explanation in the real world F1ED manual which sys the following under "remarks" in section 1.75/15: So, looking at this in formation we can probably deduce from this that this mode is intended as a medium/low altitude mode in our version of the Cyrano radar which does not have the MA and LA modes of earlier Cyrano IV versions. Also, keep in mind that the radar is currently very much work in progress so there might most probably be some noticeable changes to the radar beahvior coming in future patches which will be affecting the simulation of PRF, clutter and things like that. Also, "Cyrano" actually sports a TWS mode which is currently missing. Anyway, I hope the above picture at least sheds "some" light on your question. I would also like to hear from Chicho...maybe he can expand a bit on this? EDIT: fyi, the F1ED manual is plublicly available and unclassified.

One problem I have with DCS modules is that they are almost always the latest, most advanced variant rather than the types that were historically significant. The F-4s I want to fly are the F-4B/C/D/E/J variants that flew in Vietnam and over Israel. The principal RWRs utilized by F-4s in combat were the older strobe type. I have no choice but to settle for whatever Heatblur and other 3rd parties provide. But my preference is for aircraft versions and equipment types employed in combat that are historically correct. In the case of the F-4, that means Vietnam and Yom Kippur era variants, which did not have digital alpha-numeric style RWRs. A mid-70's F-4E with slats and TISEO is close enough for me to enjoy it in Vietnam era missions, but I would much rather have early hard wing F-4Es with the original gun muzzle or even better yet, F-4B/C/D/J variants with the appropriate field changes to accurately reflect what was flown in combat.

My life would be complete with the M variant, LGBs, Walleyes, etc.

Das war eher so "first in - last out" und wurde m.W.n. auch min 1x "heikel" als serbische MiG-29 auf ECR-Beute-Jagd unterwegs waren (da waren tief, schnell und ne Rotte US F-15C dann die "Problemlösung") - wer sich etwas mehr informieren will über diesen ersten aktiven Gefechtseinsatz deutscher Kampfflugzeuge seit dem 2. WK, findet z.B. hier ne ganz übersichtliche Zusammenfassung: https://jabog32.de/yaja/einsatz.html und hier: https://www.321tigers.de/einsatz_d_16.html