Leaderboard

Hello all. I have some info on my updates to the Admiral's LHA-6 USS America Class. Sorry for the lack of updates but this involves a lot of testing. Speaking of that many thanks to those that have helped with the testing. Several of the issues found have been addressed or have potential fixes in the works. I will send out an update soon and I'm still looking for Harrier pilots. But what would be extremely helpful is if anyone could help with the Liveries. My current ones are only meant as "place holders" with at least the correct Deck, Hull and Island Numbers. While they look ok from from 30 meters they do not hold up under close inspection. Now a ship from the Admiral deserves better and I will improve them, once I learn graphic design, . So any help from someone with some graphic design skills would greatly speed things up on that front. I'll be posting some rough videos of the testing for those that at interested in the progress of the update and the USS America MOD in general. PM if you'd like to help with the liveries or testing. And many thanks to the Admiral Here's a few pic of LHA-7 and LHA-8 under fire while sailing with LHD-1 USS Wasp and the current British and French Carriers

DCS World has none balance. The modules builded by ED and 3rd parties has build with open sources and available acurated info. Has no a problem with western systems has more technologic with a easter system. Meanwhile, coming others modules to fill gaps but otherwise, that is not a "balanced game".

And lastly. Here a couple of short videos showing so player aircraft takeoffs. 1st video is a "Flap Only" takeoff with a light weapons load. And while I've done better it's always a bit of a close call with the water. 2nd video is vertical takeoff and a heavy weapons load short takeoff using the lift fan. I'm using a VSN F-35B modified for correct STOVL ai operation. I have no idea how this mod affect "player flight" if at all. Takeoffs maybe very different in Harrier and other MOD aircraft. The update will include an updated " ai" F-35B lua to use with the America/VSN-F35B combo. As this mod was originally meant as an Ai asset I will try and add player functions as fast as i can sort them out.

Here is some test footage from weapons testing on USS America. Test is meant to be a semi realistic "real world" attack by bombers using anti-ship missiles from their maximum range (100nm in this case) to check basic weapons function and some game balancing issues. I say "semi realistic" in that it's just a single axis attack with all the missile from the same direction and the two carriers, LHA-6 and LHA-9, only have 3 escorts. 1 Tico, 1 Burke (CH's latest update) and 1 of Admiral's new FFGX-62 Frigates. It's my understanding that 2 LHA class carriers would have more escorts than that in real life so, totally "real world" no. The video starts on the F10 map in 3 "parts". 1 to show the long range battle, 2 for the mid range and finally the 3rd as the anti-ship missiles enter the ESSM SAM engagement range of the America class. Note For those wanting to get to the part with "game video" of stuff blowing up skip ahead to about 2:30. Now while the America class has the same ESSM SAMs as her escorts I have reduced their range a bit so they don't fire at the same targets as the escorts. You can see this on the last part of the F10 map. The escort SAMs (ESSM & 162) fire before the LHA ships fire their ESSM SAMs (currently named 162C). Now while this makes her weaker on her own I believe it will help with game balancing as a LHA class ship should not be sailing into harms way without an escort. I will continue testing this theory. Now with over 400 defensive SAMs and only 168 incoming missiles, in a perfect world this should be a walk in the park for the "Blue Force". But the world is far from perfect. That being said if your going to come under cruise missile attack this test shows an America Class LHA is not the worst place to be

Joker was updated with a few small details. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3332455/ She was then escorted back home by Warchief.

In real life when these forces met the result was the loss of 160 Russian-made tanks and 180 APCs vs the loss of one Bradley. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting

Thanks RoobabrhJapan. Please add this line item to the Harpoon script as shown below which is located in the USS Bainbridge CG-25.Lua. Place it under ammo capacity. -- GT.WS[ws].LN[1].show_external_missile = false Over the years when ED releases an update, there is a good chance something within the mod can be corrupted. However, in most cases, we will never know unless you all tell us or we find the issues ourselves. I will take the mod down and place it in the Shipyard for maintenance. Thanks. -- Harpoon ws = GT_t.inc_ws(); GT.WS[ws] = {} GT.WS[ws].center = 'CENTER_TOWER_06' set_recursive_metatable(GT.WS[ws], GT_t.WS_t.ship_HARPOON ) GT.WS[ws].area = 'ZA_HAR'; GT.WS[ws].pos = {15.693, 15.259, 0.315} GT.WS[ws].LN[1].PL[1].ammo_capacity = 8; GT.WS[ws].LN[1].show_external_missile = false <------------------------------------------------------------------- Place here GT.WS[ws].LN[1].BR = { {connector_name = 'Rocket_Point_123', drawArgument = 162}, {connector_name = 'Rocket_Point_124', drawArgument = 163}, {connector_name = 'Rocket_Point_125', drawArgument = 164}, {connector_name = 'Rocket_Point_126', drawArgument = 165}, {connector_name = 'Rocket_Point_127', drawArgument = 166}, {connector_name = 'Rocket_Point_128', drawArgument = 167}, {connector_name = 'Rocket_Point_129', drawArgument = 168}, {connector_name = 'Rocket_Point_130', drawArgument = 169}, }

WIP

Dear Admiral, amazing work. Especially the cold war assets are priceless and sorely needed in DCS. Thank you sir. Id like to report a UAP on the Bainbridge. We have a floating missile. All the best.

Due to the fact, that there will be much more logistical things that can be done in DCS, I wonder if it wouldn’t be great to get some new transporters? E.g. an NH90 for naval operations? What do you think?

I purchased the Wefly JF-17 right-side control panel a few days ago. I am sure that you are all dying to know how this US$1100 panel is. After intensive testing and communicating with Wefly, I have to say, this panel is less than ideal. Frankly, I don’t think their tech department knows what they are doing. OK, let me go through the problems I have encountered one at a time. First of all, let’s start with its switches. As you all know, there are 2 types of switches used on the JF-17, 2-position switches and 3-position switches. But the thing is that all 2 position switches on this panel have only 1 value instead of 2 for the 2 positions. So only its "on" position can be detected by the computer, which means you can only switch it on but can’t turn it off. Please see the video below. This video shows that the off switch can't be detected by the Windows This video shows that the off switch can't be detected by DCS. After a full day of discussing with people from Wefly, I realised that their switches are designed for JF-17’s control only. For example, for some controls in DCS, we can map our controls in 2 ways. Using the flap as an example, we have “flap up”, “flap down” and “flap up/down”. So, if you have a 2-position switch, you can map your "on" switch to “flap up” and the "off" switch to “flap down”. However, if you have only 1 button to spare, you can map it to “flap up/down”. So in this case, if you can map a switch to “flap up/down”, and when you switch down, the game will somehow be able to detect it and turn the flap down despite the fact that you have not mapped “flap down”, and the fact that your computer couldn’t detect the switch’s down position. At first glance, you may think that’s amazing and cool. Nope, it is not. Because it only works on JF-17. During my conversation with Wefly, they emphasised the importance of the “special device” category to me. Apparently, this only works for JF-17’s “Special device only” category. If you are playing anything other than JF-17, your switch will only have 1 position. You can turn it on but can’t turn it off. Well, think about it, you can. But you have to turn the switch off and then on again to get the same effect, which can be extremely awkward. What about the 3 position switches? It’s similar. They have only 2 positions that can be detected by the computer, up and down, but no middle. Let’s use the external light as an example. On JF-17, the external light switch has 3-position, which are “Normal”, “Off” and “NVG”. In the DCS, we are given the following 6 mapping options, “Normal”, “Off”, “NVG”, “Normal/Off/NVG”, “Normal/Off” and “Off/NVG”. Normally, if you have a 3-position switch, you would map them as “Normal”, “Off” and “NVG”. And if you have only 1 button, you would map it to “Normal/Off/NVG”. But in this case, you need to map it to “Normal/Off” and “Off/NVG”, and just like before, whenever you switch it to the middle, the game somehow knows that you are in the “Off” position. Hmm…. Only work on JF-17 and only work on the category “special device only” which isn’t available on other planes. I don’t understand why they designed their driver this way. It would be much simple and easier for us if they make it like everybody else. Let the Windows detect them all so we players can map them as we thought fit. This is the same problem in their UFCP. They just had to make one of those software to take control of the UFCP instead of letting us map them. But during the conversation, I get this feeling that their technicians are proud of this. So don’t expect them to change this anytime soon. As for the 3-position switches, since only the mid position can’t be detected and you still have up and down 2 positions, you can still use them as 2-way switches on other aircraft. Now, let’s move on to other aspects of this panel. If you are an axis lover like me, you are going to be thoroughly disappointed because, except for the 3 knobs for lights, every knob on this thing is an encoder. And the worst thing is that those 3 knobs don’t work at all. Please see the video and picture below, notice that Windows can’t detect it and so does the DCS. The picture above: No Axis is detected by the Windows. Video Above: Axis can't be detected by DCS. I have been trying to contact Wefly about this problem. But they claim that it is just my setting which isn’t right and told me that one of their technicians will help me to get it right. I really didn’t know what to make of this. The switch problem was kind of fixed (well only for JF-17), but at least the game and computer can detect at least one of their positions. But for those Axis, both the computer and the DCS can’t detect them. I do not understand how is “a problem in my setting” as they put it, when both the Windows and DCS couldn't detect those Axis. so I waited for a while and checked in once in a while. But their technician never showed up. The next day, I received a message telling me that later, their technician will help me and that it was best for me to download an APP for the remote control of my computer. And their technician will help me by remote control my computer. I am sure you all know that the internet is a dangerous place, we all use different ways to protect ourselves from all the misdemeanours on the internet. But I chose to trust them and downloaded the APP. But then, I waited and waited, the technician still didn’t show. Since they claim that the device was OK and it is only my setting that is wrong, so they refused to give me a refund or replacement. I mean, who would? That’s US$1100. After 2 days, I asked them that haven’t their technician showed up for work in the past 2 days, their salesperson claims that their technicians are doing something else. Only by the end of the 2nd day, their technician showed up and took the remote control of my computer. During that time, they appear to have installed some kind of software (which they uninstalled right afterwards), that looks a bit like the configuration tool from Virple (not the same but appears to have a similar function) and through that software, they installed some kind of driver which allowed my Windows to detect those Axis. After a quick test, I noticed that the value of the 3rd Axis doesn't seem right. But I was told that "Let's leave it for now. Tomorrow, we will remake a calibration file and test it again". When they said that I assume they know the problem and that this is just another driver issue as it is presented in their UFCP. I trusted them thinking maybe they are working on it and it would be a matter of time before they fixed it, and they would contact me after the weekend. But afterwards, they never contacted me to address the issue. Maybe they were busy with other things and will fix the issue and contact me eventually, I thought. I thoroughly test them in the meantime. Please see the video below. It will show you that whenever you rotate the first knob, the value of the 3rd knob will change too. On top of that, the smallest value of the 3rd Axis is 30%, not 0%. The other problem you may have noticed is that they combined the first and second Axis into a virtual joystick instead of independent Axises. Why is that a problem? I will explain it later. For now, the problem is that to prevent the 1st Axis from affecting the 3rd Axis, I have to tune the 3rd Axis by giving it a 71% dead zone and 40 curvature. Because, the 3rd Axis starts with a 30% value, and if you rotate the first knob to maximum, that value will increase to 71%, that's why you need a 71% dead zone. So, after nearly a week without hearing from them, I contacted them again. But this time, they claim that this is how it suppose to be. And "The engineer said that this is just a matter of model value transfer, that's how it was developed"; "Flight sim software's calibration function exists for this very reason. So as long as you can use it, it's not a big deal. No need to get too tangled in this issue". Honestly, I don't know what to make of this. I didn't want to assume the worst of people and have always loved to give people the benefit of the doubt. On top of that, the salesperson had been very helpful to me. He didn't appear to know what is he talking about nor had any experience in flight sim. All he ever told me was what the technician told him to. So when he offered me to contact the engineer directly, I jumped at the opportunity. But that is when things get slightly more ....... questionable. After back and forth with the engineer, he insisted that my problem was just a matter of calibration on my part. If what he said was true, then the control panel is purposefully designed this way and every one of them would have the exact same problem. In the end, I told him that this may be a faulty device, if so I'd like to have a replacement, not a refund because I would still love to support new control panel developers. It's no big deal to have produced a faulty product. Every factory has them, even the best factories. If it is a driver's issue, all you have to do is to patch the driver. But after I said that, he stopped responding to me. For some of the more experienced players in the flight sim community, you probably want to suggest to used Windows to calibrate those Axis. But that's the problem of having a virtual joystick instead of 2 independent Axis. As a joystick, their default value is at 50%, not 0% or 100%. So after calibration, your smallest or biggest value for those 2 Axis will get stuck at 50%. At that point, you have to "reset to default". But when you do, all problems came back. Please see the video below. The calibration doesn't solve the problem. Now, let's summarise. The main problems we have here are as follows: 1: Just like their UFCP, there is still no software to synchronise the warning lights. 2: Switches are organised in a way that only works on JF-17. 3: The three Axis are not working properly. Of course, there are still some other minor issues. For example, all encoder knobs and a button feel a bit loose. Also, about the emergency landing gear handle. I wish people in Wefly take those issues seriously and face them. Especially when they want to charge people over US$1100 for it. At this point, because we don't have the software to synchronise the warning light, the entire warning light panel is still little more than a decoration. As I have mentioned before. It is a simple matter, or at least it should be. If the device is faulty, admit it and provide the customer with a replacement. If it's the driver's problem, simply patch it. It is not wise to charge people a premium price for faulty or incomplete goods while blaming the custom for your own mistakes. EDIT: Agree. But that is assume you receive one without defection. Otherwise, once they received your money, they won't care about what happens afterwards. I am still not happy about the way they treated their customer when they send their customer a defective product. Their attitude is very arrogant and in a very perfunctory manner. Firstly, only after days of waiting did their promised technician show up. After they installed the driver, they immediately run off without fixing the axis problem. And when they ran off, they told me that "they will remake a new calibration tool the next day". That led me to believe that they knew about the axis problem yet didn't tell me about it before selling it to me. On top of that, they didn't contact me again to provide me with this new "calibration tool". That was the last conversation we had before they left me hanging on it for nearly a week. After that, I tried to contact them again, but they started to pretend they never said that, and it is a problem on my part. null Afterwards, they put me in contact with their engineer. That guy was very arrogant, and perfunctory as hell, gloating even. After I took the time to explain the problem I have encountered in detail again, all he replied was this. null One sentence. Go look at the DCS software manual. I had no idea what's this DCS software is. Is it some kind of accessory software to DCS? or is it software that they have developed? I don't know. So I asked them what's this DCS software. And I got this as a reply. This time without even a word. At least last time, I got a full sentence. Please tell me, if you are in my shoes, how do you interpret it? In the end, I figured out that the DCS software they were referring to was not any software, but just "Axis Tuning". What they were trying to say in this picture was to not use Deadzone and curvature, but to decrease the saturation to where the arrow pointed. As anyone who has used Axis tuning will know, that won't fix the problem, instead, it will make the problem worse. So I wrote back showing them that their idea won't work. Once again, I got one sentence back. Seriously, what other reasons can lead to this? Anyone could have seen that this is a defective product by this point, either in its driver or hardware. That was when I asked for a replacement, but never received any reply from them again. EDIT 2: Still no response from them. Johnny415 also tried to contact them through email and WhatsApp multiple times, hoping to solve the issues on the UFCP. But they didn't even bother to reply to him at all. Also, there is another problem I forgot to mention. All of their encoders have NO push functions. Now I think it is safe to assume that Wefly products are defective by design. That is why everybody I have heard who purchased their products experienced the same problem. Their engineers are just not talented enough to design a proper controller. And they know it, they can't send their customers the replacements because all of their goods are the same, so they stopped responding to us because they cannot solve the problem.

The closest thing to balance in DCS you will ever see is having contemporary assets and good mission design. NATO equipment was more technologically advanced than Warsaw Pact equipment. That is still the case with Western and Russian and Chinese equipment. Some of this was due to design philosophy, I won't get into the debate as to how much. The West especially after nations started to end conscription tended to favor more expensive high-tech systems while the East tended to favor low-tech systems that would be cheaper to build in bulk. I would love to see ED add modern Red Force aircraft, but as ED's goal is to make things as realistic as possible without getting visited by men in black suits, the only possible way we might see them officially would be as AI assets. I'd have no problems with that. So that leaves us with mods or being creative with mission design. When building missions whether it is single-player, player vs player, or co-op it is up to you the builder to determine how to achieve the right balance. That's not to say there is nothing that ED needs to improve that would as a side effect improve balance without sacrificing realism. This is one of the reasons I am way more excited about older planes than I am about modern ones. The F-4 vs MiG-21 will be a better match-up than the MiG-21 vs Mirage F1 or F-14 (if the engine holds up). Focusing on what we have, balance is achievable through mission design. Have the Red For outnumber the blue, and have a good air defense network. Having said that there are things ED could do to improve things that wouldn't sacrifice realism. Some ideas to improve the ground game would be the following. First add minefields, trenches, and other defensive positions this would make troops harder to hit and a tougher battle than troops out in the open. Next would be better artillery AI, the main problem here is that we are limited to barrage fire as we don't have forward observers. I would love to have AI FAC/FOs either ground or air-based call-in artillery and air strikes instead of relying strickly on pre-programmed strikes Then there needs to be more unit types in general. Training was a big issue here, if we were to build a realistic Desert Storm campaign the US would be set to Ace while the Iraqis would be set to trained.

As already stated, DCS is not about balance, which is the remit of arcade games. DCS is about accuracy to whatever is currently possible. If it happens that this results in an imbalance, then that's just tough. That's not any different to most historical wars, e.g. either of the Gulf Wars, Vietnam etc. Within say WW2 we had great examples within the Pacific theatre. At the start the Zero was easily the best aircraft as it was as fast as it's enemies and could also outmanoeuvre them. By 44', the Zero didn't really improve much. Whilst the Hellcat and Corsair couldn't outmanoeuvre a Zero, they were significantly faster, and with the use of appropriate tactics, ie. boom and zoom, ripped them to pieces. I don't believe that the Zero was ever really on "equal" terms with any aircraft that it faced.

The team had time this weekend to get stuck into the forward windscreen assembly, de-riveting the structure ahead of removing it from the cockpit. A relatively simple exercise, bar the exception that the skins have been bonded to the frames with pressurization sealant and required the use of metal spatulas etc to separate. The team have been super careful to not damage anything, ensuring that it can all be re-assembled should it be required for another project. Lots of cleaning is now ahead, before further disassembly etc.

the hornet remains my go to jet, versatile fighter-bomber with naval ops and looks very cool, plus it has the best cockpit and vr performance is excellent.

C-RAM in action. From DCS TikTok https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGJsJs46D/

Hello dear friends and pilots. *The roadmap has been changed regarding the 3rd phase of the project, the wishes and feedback of users have been taken into account. According to the plan, we have already completed 2 phases of the project, the 3rd phase remains. But we are introducing an additional phase that includes unique objects and several airfields. Roadmap Phase 3 Fixing bugs from users and beta testers (more than 100) - in progress Airfields 15 pcs: Added 2 airfields: Sharm_El_Sheikh_airport, Ramon_International_airport. - in progress. Unique objects and architectural monuments, industrial facilities - more than 100 pieces (Cairo, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Petra, Eilat, Tel Aviv and etc.)- in progress. More detailed zones of new airfields, places under unique objects. City textures - improvement, garbage cleaning. Rocky coastline. 2 types of acacia bushes for the south of Israel. Village fence models. New more realistic seabed texture. Parking for f35 for Israeli airfields. New type of the helipads and improved scenes for them. Night illumination of unique objects. Upgrading the Pyramids of Giza and the tombs around the pyramids (as in the preview video). Trees on mountains in Israel. Addition of military installations of Egypt (northern and southern camp). Improving ground textures (adding more color variety). Raster charts - the user has already been made available for free. Phase 4 *preliminary, subject to change Addition of airfields that were not included in phases 1-3 - typical airfields of 1-2 types Working out rocks in unique places, Ramon, Petra, etc.. Additional unique objects not included in phase 3 Bugs and improvements that constantly come from users Timeline *preliminary, subject to change Phase 3 - end of November (testing). Mid-December - update phase 3. Phase 4 - Q1 2024 !!! Thank you for your support and patience. Some new map models:

******************************************************** CURRENT VERSION: 2024-04-26b DOWNLOAD LINK: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3332633/ 10 PERCENT TRUE YOUTUBE: https://www.10percenttrue.com/ 10 PERCENT TRUE DISCORD: https://discord.gg/Feu25zjVxs ******************************************************** NOTE: THIS IS A SINGLE-PLAYER MISSION. IT USES SCRIPTS AND TRIGGERS THAT ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH MULTIPLAYER STYLE PLAY. ************************************************************ Welcome to Inherent Resolve, a DCS A-10C II Tank Killer mission designed by Sedlo for the 10 Percent True Podcast. This is a Close Air Support Mission set on the Syria Map and can be played single-player only. See Read_Me file in the included .zip for more information. There are two versions of this mission inside the zip file. One is a Cold Start and the other an Air Start. The Air Start version puts you at the refueling track, full of gas and ready to take on any tasking you receive. It is recommended to fly the Cold Start Version first though, as you will receive more information about the mission. This mission is designed for players who are proficient in the DCS A-10C II module and its weapons systems. Examples of challenges you may face include: • Basic aircraft handling, such as take offs and landings • Use of the various radio and navigation systems. • Air to Air Refueling. • Dynamic re-tasking in a fast-paced environment. • Use of the targeting pod and employment of weapons systems. (It is essential that you read and understand the included mission briefing documents AND the Read_Me file included in the .zip) In addition, familiarity with US military terms and abbreviations is helpful to understand what is going on in the flight. NOTE: You MUST own the DCS A-10C II Tank Killer module and you MUST own UGRA MEDIA’s Syria Terrain in order to play this mission! ************* INSTALLATION: Unzip the contents of the download to your folder at Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Missions ************* MISSION OBJECTIVES Today’s mission (XR-352-P) has three main objectives: • Provide On Call CAS support in the southern Section of the AO from 06:30z to 09:00z. • Train with 93rd ARW out of Fairchild AFB, newly arrived in theatre. • Familiarization with Local area and AO procedures ************* WEATHER AND NOTAMS OVERVIEW A weakening high-pressure system overhead the southern AO will slowly give way to a warm front approaching from the Mediterranean. Weather throughout the AO is good VFR, light winds, visibility more than 10 miles and ceilings around 10,000ft. METAR/TAF KING HUSSEIN AB (OJMF) METAR/TAF METAR OJMF 0400Z 30012KT 10SM SCT100 10/1 Q1013 2992 TAF OMJF 060404 P10SM SCT100 FM 061000 30020KT P7SM HZ BKN100 H4 AIRBASE (IQ-0400) METAR/TAF METAR IQ-0400 0400Z 34002KT 10SM SCT110 8/1 Q1013 2992 TAF IQ-0400 060404 P10SM SCT110 FM 061000 30030KT P3SM HZ BKN60 H3 AIRBASE (IQ-0020) METAR/TAF METAR IQ-0020 0400Z 01011KT 10SM BKN100 6/1 Q1013 2992 TAF IQ-0020 060404 P10SM SCT110 FM 061000 30030KT P3SM HZ BKN60 NOTAMS C007 - OJMF TAXIWAY C, C3, C4 CLOSED UFN C036 - OJMF TACAN (10X, AJQ) U/S FROM 0100Z-0400Z DEC.6 C991 - OJMF LIGHTING RWY 31 TO READ: AW INSTEAD OF AO C216 – OJMF VHF TWR FREQ 119.7 U/S UFN. CTC TWR 121.0 UFN C217 – OJMF VHF ATIS FREQ 129.75 U/S UFN. ************* INTELLIGENCE UPDATE OVERVIEW 06 DECEMBER 2016 AT 01:00 ZULU Daesh fighters are expected to make a final move on the town of Palmyra this morning after taking the airport late last night. The Syrian Army has retreated to the Palmyra Army Depot and are expected to hold the base against the current Daesh attack. The Palmyra Army Depot is a suspected WMD storage area, and it’s in Syria’s best interest to secure these weapons from being compromised. The State Department and OGA have reached out to the Syrian leadership to offer assistance in securing the WMD but all offers have been declined. The COALITION partners have determined that WMD falling into the hands of DAESH is to be avoided at all cost. ________________________________________ The Russian Navy Task Force centered around t he Cruiser VARYAG is expected to make port at Tartus this afternoon. Refueling and replenishment operations are expected to take 12 hours. ________________________________________ RIVET JOINT has detected indications of a new SA-3 battery located at TYIAS airbase. The proximity to the FEBA near Palmyra indicates that the Syrians intend to hold TIYAS in the face of any organized Daesh attack. ________________________________________ The new teletype link (POLECAT) between the Syrian Ministry of Defense, RUAFHQ and JACKAL is now operational. This development is meant to ensure positive communications between military leadership on all sides of the situation in Syrian. ________________________________________ ************* MISSION PLANNING Mission Number – XR-352-P Departure: VFR Departure runway 31 from C2 (8998 ft remaining) Afterburner: Yes Departure Instructions: VFR 31 Dep LEFT turn heading 180 maintain 6000. Note: There is no ATC control outside the OJMF control zone. OJMF Control Zone extends in a 10nm radius up to 5500ft MSL • Ford 51 will depart runway 31 with an immediate left turn to heading 180. Expect to be pushed to FOCUS control leaving 5000ft. • Rendezvous and refuel with Texaco 51 at Steer Point 2 (ADDER). • Take Up On-Call CAS with an orbit overhead Steer Point 3 (Al-Tanf) • VUL time is 0630-0900 Z. • Following VUL time, TEXACO 51 will be available for refueling if desired. • Expect the visual approach and overhead break runway 31. • When overhead Syrian Territory, ensure you are EAST of the 38 E line. ************* THREATS The Syrian Air Force has increased operations dramatically in the last 24 hours. Yesterday, they carried out multiple airstrikes in defense of the city of Palmyra. SU-24 and MiG-29 attacks were observed, with all operations out of the TIYAS airbase. Russian SU-35 CAP patrols have been observed in and around the port of TARTUS, which coincides with the expected arrival of their naval task force later today. Syrian Air Force has MiG-29 on alert at TIYAS and SHAYRAT airbases, all believed to be in a 15-minute alert status. Russian SU-35 are on 5-minute alert at Latakia Airbase. ________________________________________ Syrian IADS network is still operational. Damascus is defended by long range SA-5 and SA-2 batteries. SA-2, SA-3 and SA-6 batteries near the airbase at TIYAS are operational. High volumes of AAA and MANPADS expected throughout the AO. ************* RULES OF ENGAGMENT ROE Weapons Tight – Do not fire unless under direct attack or authorized via JACKAL or FOCUS control. *************

Howdy there! I'm not sure what kind of ammo we have in the DEFA's at the moment, however they feel a little limp when hitting planes at times. They do great damage to ground targets however, which leads me to believe we have an AP or AP/HE belt. However the DEFA 30mms had belts of all different kinds, listed as follows: DEFA 552/552A/553/554 Caliber: 30 mm Number of main: 1 Barrel length: Overall length: 1957 mm Weapon weight: DEFA 552 -80 kg DEFA 552A -81 kg DEFA 553 -81 kg DEFA 554 -85 kg Number of chambers: 5 Muzzle velocity: DEFA 554 - 765 m/s APHEI-SD; 815 m/s HEI; 820 mps TP Cadence: DEFA 552 - 1250 rounds/min DEFA 552A - 1300 rounds/min DEFA 553 - 1300 rounds/min DEFA 554 - 1100 - 1800 rounds/min Method of shooting: dose from DEFA 553 limited (lasting 0.5 s or 1 s) or continuous Manufacturer: Manufacture National d`Armes Ammunition:30 x 113 mm Match: electric Length: whole hub 213 mm cartridge 113 mm Weight: whole projectile 245 - 275 g (according to projectile type) projectile explosive charge 18-50 g (according to projectile type) whole charge 450 g dust 48 g Species: Type 5432 APHEI-SD Type 6522 HEI & HEI-SD Type 21202 TP & TP-T Type 2671 SAPHEI Type 2271 AGTP It would be great to know if at all possible, if these would come sometime down the line. Currently the Air to Air effectiveness of the guns are very hit or miss.

Hey, welcome to the forums! I have moved this topic to chit chat, I am fine with the discussion but it really isn't a wishlist item. Why? There is no bias in DCS World. There is no balance either... let's go over some of your points. This is the nature of air combat simulation, heck it's the nature of air combat period. A good pilot in an ok plane could beat an ok pilot in a good plane. It depends on the situation and scenario. Even the best pilot can make a mistake that could be fatal to him, even with the best equipment. Now the F1 is very new to DCS and in early access, could some aspect be not 100% right right now? Sure but a blanket statement of plane A can beat plane B every time no question would be biased. Hmmm, can I borrow your Western crews? Many times I have a different experience, but again this can go both ways and if you are seeing a consistent situation then you need to report a bug. The scenario and situation play a big part here as well, and the ground game in some cases is a lower fidelity, especially with damage modelling and the like. To call it a bias is wrong. Almost every time? So you are saying there is a chance? <insert meme> If I were building a carrier I would test and install defenses that stop incoming missiles almost every time as well. Analyze your attack, when are you successful, when are you not? Saturate the carrier's defences or try something new and different to attack. The US has many years of carrier warfare under its belt as well as other such experiences. It's not biased when the Carrier needs to be called Super. DCS is built with the intention of simulating each and every aircraft we add to the best of our abilities, legal and unclassified documentation and desire and passion to make the most realistic experience possible. At times this means countries that are more closed off or hard to get info on suffer a little more, they have older equipment it's not as impressive to other countries that we can get more info on. This is not a bias, this is just facts of the world we live in. Nothing you have described raises any red flags to me. We included a very powerful Mission Editor, you can put limitations on certain forces and allow more chances for success. You can also spend more time, look at what doesn't work and finding ways to make it work, either in the Mission Editor or types and styles of attacks. I hope you do not give up, but there is no bias or balance here, we make everything as real as possible and then how the cards are played is up to you. Thanks.

I think i´ve found the origin of the "Dim Lights" issue. I´m using a mission template for training in my virtual squad for a long time, with different aircrafts and options. The F-15E lights intensity was normal until the last update, where i´ve found this dim issue, wondering why and driving me nuts. Then i´ve just deleted the F-15E flight and created another new airplane, and the issue gone away not thinking anymore about it. But reading this post maked me thinking about the special options tab with NVG and Filters equiped on the F-15E, and..... That´s the reason why you see the lights dimed. Before the patch checking on additional aircraft porperties boxes " Equip AN/AVS-9 NVG and NVG Filter" didn´t change anything on the lights intensity in daylight. But now, since the last patch if you check those boxes, then all the warning, caution, master mode lights get dimed/filtered to the bare min, even if the mission is in broad daylight, when i suppose it should dim the lights only when you put your NVG´s on. So that´s my discover and the reason why you see the lights issue. I hope this helps to fix the bug, if there is any, or maybe this is intended and pilots should not check those boxes if they are going to fly at day. But in my oppinion the lights intensity should change when you put your NVG´s on or when you activate the filters on the cockpit, not only because the boxes are checked. Imagine a mission starting just with the sunset with enough light to VFR but to much for the NVG´s and after that with less light you put the NVG´s on. Only at that moment the cockpit lights intensity should change.

Simply amazing!!

Yes, this Mod works fine on the latest DCS.

Up until about a year ago, the Viper wasn't really in a state of readiness... Why spend the time/effort to create something while the thing is in-flux and not yet feature complete? Once it started to come together, campaign devs started working on them. These things take time! Anyway, here are some of my missions for the Viper. Give 'em a go: Red Flag 1: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3306417/ Red Flag 2: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3309960 Have Armchair: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313261/ Inherent Resolve: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3332539/

Yes, you can find everything your looking for! There is Flyable Mods as well. DCS User files is where you get liveries for all the different Aircraft. Currenthill is is by far one of the best Mod creators out these. So Google DCS World Currenthill. Enjoy, Timex 3 Understood, Timex 3

Hi Timex3, I was just offering this link to Ted Striker who is apparently looking for an NH-90

The old Vietnam texture replacement mod could be re made. But it would take a lot of time. Better to use the islands as a stand in for Nam till ED make it. Add these trees to fill the gaps.

Also nach der 2-wöchigen Testphase hab ich mich für die F16 entschieden und habe damit alles richtig gemacht. Für MICH ist dies ein genialer Flieger, super flink und wendig und schnell sowieo, genau mein Flugstil. Mittlerweile komme ich mit dieser auch sehr gut klar! Ich habe mich aber auch noch entschieden die F18 zu kaufen. Aber wie mehrfach weiter oben des Öfteren erwähnt fliegt sich diese ganz anders. Ich würde es auch als "gemütlicher" beschreiben. Auch bei der Landung verzeiht die F18 mehr als die F16. Letztendlich finde ich beide gut, für meinen Flugstil wäre weiterhin meine erste Wahl die F16. Aber wie gesagt ... jeder ist anders

If DCS was capable of simulating a modern fully authentic Red vs Blue scenario, it would end up basically being like the Gulf War, and we all know how that went down. The Blue Team would get flyable F-117s that would obliterate all the Red Team SAMs and command systems, then Blue air would dominate the whole battle. Nobody would want to play the Red Team.

Following the road, you should have had a few messages as you recce several clearings, then you should have found more things, i don't want to spoil it all away. If you feel that you are lost why not using the kneeboard and drop a carrot there and get your bearings. Navigation is hard anyway and navigation by map and compass is not easy. Mission 5, you are right, easy to implement and add it. NBD is due to my stupidity. I added 650 in the trigger and not 0.65 as it should be and it carried over to the missions that use it. Update is on the way for that already. Thanks a lot for your feedback, much appreciated. Also, looking at the docs i see that the innitial doc is missing. I'll re-send it. Cheers,

Hi, this is up to ED. We have asked for the new ammo types and they are in the process of implementing them.

Thank you for posting about this problem. It has been nearly one year since you highlighted this issue and nothing has been done. I believe this is also an issue with other ED modules that carry the 9B such as the F5. With the introduction of the Mirage F1 and its new and more realistic launch characteristics with the 9B, this problem became even more so highlighted with other modules. It is my belief that this is partly what also lead to RAZBAM removing the auto-uncage of the R-3S (historically a very similar missile) on the mig-19 and changing other launch sequences such as the time it takes to leave the rail. I am bumping this topic simply because although here; on the forum, it doesn't "seem" much of an issue and I hope it gets more attention. Among the cold war multiplayer player base, it's very common that "little" issues like this tend to elevate our disdain for the game and gives us the feeling that these modules have been abandoned.

Finally progressed into the game. Couple more days of fine tuning to go!

Many thanks to Nathan from the MVP team who donated a complete nose-leg assembly for the simpit. The leg was never part of the original simpit project scope, however, we decided to stand the cockpit up on it, and the original unit in the aircraft is heavily corroded and missing many of the accessories and components. We are very happy with this unit and will be looking forward to cleaning it up, giving it a fresh coat of paint and installing it.

It depends what people want from multiplayer and expectations of the developers to provide a multiplayer service or give the players the autonomy to do what they want and figure it out for themselves. ED fit into the latter category and IMHO it works fine for the squadrons to organise themselves. What it doesn’t provide is a true drop in service some seem to think it should be. For that you need very restricted content to gain critical mass of players. iRacing is a classic case study in how to provide a service where the numbers of players takes precedence over the content. People don’t join thinking they will drive MX5s or Skip Barbers but end up racing the introductory compulsory content forever because that is where they find the people they can race against. Over time iRacing has added content as the player base has grown, but only when there were sufficient numbers not to kill the core series, fragmentation is a real thing and has to be managed to provide a service. Some series are very niche and are more like the self organised servers here but the core series are very well populated round the clock. To get there iRacing exclusively managed servers and only allowed public hosting after getting the numbers. I don’t see DCS ever being like iRacing but the fragmentation of the community is inevitable with such a variety of content and free for all provision of servers.

@MAXsenna was not aware of that mod thanks

you truly are a gifted engineer! great great stuff, thanks for all your commitment !! since you mentioned the F18 grip, i would like to suggest some ideas: 1) as TM missed to implement the push function in the TRIM switch (which as we learned since the release of the F15 has an important function), maybe you could find a replacement solution to this issue? (maybe connect the trim push switch in parallel to the RECCE?) 2) for a long time i've been thinking how cool it would be, if TM had designed the CASTLE sw and the TRIM sw in such way that they were 'plug & play' interchangeable, so that their grip would also 100% replicate that of the harrier

@PLAAF LOL, they forgot to add the landing gear override handle. I bought the UFCP from them, the encoders are useless and not working properly. Regarding the on/off toggle switch they probably not using the on/on switch wiring to the toggle that's why you can't use it on another module. There is a workaround by modifying one file. Let's try one example that will match the JF-17 AC Gen toggle switch with the Mig-21 AC Gen switch C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\aircraft\MIG-21bis\Input\MiG-21\joystick. There is a file called "default" that should be edited with Notepad++ {combos={{key='K',reformers={'RAlt'}}},down=device_commands.ACGenerator,cockpit_device_id=devices.AC_BUS,value_down=1.0,name=_('AC Generator'),category=_('Power')}, {combos={{key='K',reformers={'RAlt'}}},down=device_commands.ACGenerator,up=device_commands.ACGenerator,cockpit_device_id=devices.AC_BUS,value_down=1.0,value_up= 0.0,name=_('AC Generator 2-Pos ON/OFF'),category=_('Power')}, The top code is default and the bottom code is modified after editing save and in DCS World controls now you should be able to see AC Gen on/off set and assign this input to on only. The fun part is you will have to do this to all the modules you want to use with the Wefly panel

I have both but honestly, I find the F16's hotas workflow far more intuitive and fluid. The F15's hotas functions are like "let's put this here, oh wait how about over here for the pilot and over there for the WSO".

For reasons you’ve stated and others, it’s not up for debate whether a module is superior to a mod. Rather, the current choice for fans of early model & carrier based F-4 Phantom IIs are the VSN mod or nothing. It will be years before HB releases a US Navy Phantom II module. Would people here really prefer no option at all over a standalone mod, warts and all?

WOW! That would be maybe the door opener for more interesting mods. So far- I put some more polygons on the models, worked on the bump textures and animations : Cheers TOM

DCS: F-4E is, as the name implies, an -E. Our -E is modeled mostly after a specific block and set of T.O., however in general, specimens did change slightly here and there. E.g. our cockpit includes the AVTR recorder, which was a later addition to the cockpit across the fleet.

If you're really trying to maintain around 90° nose up, you can go some way until you stall (I don't remember the max. height, but i started slow): IRL I think you wouldn't climb with 90°, maybe at an airshow. But then you don't climb that high or else the spectators will lose sight . You can also see the plane already slowing down in this vid:

G'day @currenthill love your mods keep up the great work. With Thales Australia building their Bushmaster and Hawkei (Hawk-eye) vehicles for Ukrainian forces. I would like to see Australian assets in DCS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_Protected_Mobility_Vehicle# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawkei

KC-10 would be nice, but even nicer would be an A330 MRTT or/and an A400M Tanker

I don't want to celebrate too soon, but Dropbox Professional seem to handle the download/bandwidth requirements pretty well so far.